1. .The Victorian Court and Tribunal court System
The Australian judicial system is constituted of judges found in the federal courts and the courts, which are ascertained at the territories and the countries' various states. The High Court is the overall head judicial court position undertaking both hearings from the entire country.
Moreover, each state has its court system, which is similar in every territory. The Hierarchy above belongs to the Victorian Court System.
According to Gimenez, jurisdiction refers to the power ascertained to the court system to hear and determine a case openly based upon several acts enacted by the countries legislative procedure with the constitutional law (Gimenez, n.d. Firstly, concerning the topmost Court (Supreme Court), it is partitioned into the trial division and the appeal court. The trial division section of the Supreme Court is the one indebted to hear original jurisdictions, which are often criminal jurisdiction that is mainly concerned with murder cases, sex assault like rape incidents, fund disputes between business entities with massive amounts exceeding a quarter-million dollars. The trial division can offer the original jurisdiction of both criminal and civil cases. However, on the other party, the Court of appeal is obligated to hear alleviate jurisdictions from the lower courts or the trial division. County Court is the second-highest Court after the Supreme Court. It often hears both original and relieves jurisdictions from other lower courts. They can be robbery with violence, sexual assault, or even failing to follow traffic laws. It can hear an alleviate jurisdiction from a lower court than it but not higher courts in the hierarchy system. The magistrate's courts are the most subordinate Court in the state of Victoria. It comprises the Children's Court, which hears both criminal and civil cases concerning children under the age of 18. The magistrate's Court also encompasses the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT), which solves cases involving debts and small supply chains among business partners (Wallace, 2018).eventually, the coroner's court is obligated to undertake hearings concerning unnatural or unwanted deaths in the state.
The court hierarchy system is useful in several ways. Firstly it creates a means that allows a particular case to be heard at a different court, thus eliminating unrelated topics in a certain court. Besides, it sets a structure to be followed if one is not contented with the hearings and wants to appeal. This will, therefore, provide a path to be followed. Eventually, the court hierarchy allows for the doctrine of precedent. According to Didace (2020), this refers to the value set by the Court in ensuring cases that are like, are listened at a similar court for consistency and equality purposes.
2. The ordinary laws are often made at the Court by judges; this is executed using the doctrine of precedent and statutory reporting depicted at the court sessions and hearings. Firstly, the common law is made by employing the doctrine of precedent. This precedent doctrine refers to the case whereby similar cases are judged regarding the previous decision made by the last judge. This then means that after a decision is made on a specific topic, it is recorded and used later on for reference purposes. On the other hand, courts make laws using Statutory reporting’s. These reports are materials continued in the Hansard or other acts of parliament employed in judging several cases.
3. Civil laws often imply cases concerning two individuals fighting over a sure thing, resulting in one gaining from the judges' decision. They are often related to negligence issues; for instance, a person fails to follow the traffic rules or a conflict over an individual item of interest between them. However, on the other hand, the criminal law deals with the part of the law that is after depicting crime activities done by an individual with the urge of punishing him—for instance, an armed robbery case. Furthermore, civil law employs a burden of proof where one individual produces 'reliable 'evidence and wins the case; however, in criminal law. The suspect is guilty until a standard of showing he or she is innocent has been provided at the Court (Bergstrom, 2016). Moreover, in civil laws, the aggrieved person is the one obligated to initiate the case, while in criminal law, the government is the one who often files a lawsuit against the suspect. Eventually, in civil law, the aggrieved person can either be liable or not in the topic; however, in criminal law, the suspect is either guilty or innocent (Duff, 2018).
1.. The magistrate is the one obligated to make decisions concerning the complaints brought up by both suspect's lawyers and witnesses (Bonnet, 2020). Moreover, the defendant is accused of doing a crime while the witness is the one testifying against or beside the defendant. The jury is employed to discern the entire court session while the lawyers are the ones who talk preside over the governments or defendant's side. Eventually, the bench clerk is indebted to examine the papers brought at the Court (Holvast and Mascini, 2020).
2. At the magistrate court, the leading causes that are heard encompass criminal and civil cases since it is the lowest court system's lowest level. The criminal offenses that are often heard at the magistrate's courtroom include offenses like traffic violations. Minor assault between individuals, damage to other property, and little robbery and theft cases. It also hears civil cases like negligence of duties, especially guardians, breaching of contracts, and also funds matters for money not exceeding $100,000.However, in exceptional circumstances, the magistrate's Court can hear appellate jurisdiction if it's not very huge. During the court sessions at the magistrate's Court, committal hearings are depicted. This is executed by the judge to ascertain if a case has enough evidence to proceed. The magistrate also can hear bail hearings of suspects who want to cut deals with fewer bonds. Bail hearings are often conducted to ascertain if a defendant is liable or not for bail (Bunin, 2016)
3. This case concerns the police officers and madam Vella accused by the police of driving his car under high alcohol conditions. Madam Vella is also charged with causing her vehicle with a suspended driving license. Vella's lawyer claims that the toxicology report brought against his client may be false, and Vella did not know she was driving using an expired permit since she has smoked cannabis and was 'high.' However, the police officers presented a substantial exhibit C, which was a lab report of the toxicology report taken from Vella herself. Which then made the judge decide and reign her guilty. Mr. Hardy was quite emphatic that exhibit C retrieval procedure was not in conjunction with obtaining evidence to the courtroom; however, the protocol does not stop proving that the sample is from madam Vella. Due to this argument, the judge favored the police side since they had provided strong exhibit C in Court full enough to prove Vella guilty.
4. This civil case is between Enviro Teepers and Mr. Blandthorn, whereby Enviro Teepers is accusing Blandthorn of the accident that involved the two parties. Enviro teepers claim that Blandthorn should be blamed for causing the whole wreckage brought to his car during the accident. Enviro teepers provides Mr. Roumbous as his witness who accuses Blandthorn of negligence during road usage. Enviro teepers seems to be implicating must have assumptions to Blandthorn as the main person who caused the accident while he is the one whose car was mostly demolished. During the case, Enviro teepers evidence against Blandthorn is based on the fact that he never paved the way for the teeper to pass thus pulled over his car at the diversion point; however, Blandthorn argues that Mr. Roumbos was in a hurry and kept on beeping loudly although Blandthorn was familiar with that road. Therefore, the judge decided the case in favor of Mr. Blandthorn. Mr. Roumbos was the one in a hurry since even if someone pulled off his car on the road, it would be tough for a back hit to be severe to such an extent. Similarly, the rudeness of yelling and hurries of beeping be Mr. Roumbous was evident that he was considerate within the road.
5. A courtroom is an exceptional place that requires the proper observance of the propagated rules and regulations to ensure the smooth running of operations. It is suitable for one to present his or her self looking neat since there is a vast group of people in the courtroom following the proceedings. It is also important to consider switching off your mobile phones to avoid disruption during the court session due to the nuisance produced. It is also very essential to maintain silence within the courtroom for a clear and adequate follow-up of the entire proceedings, and again, when leaving or entering the courtroom, it will be sufficient to maintain orderliness in all of the operations (Shlom, 2020). Eventually, the respective court language has to be retained whereby the magistrate has to be addressed as your honor and standing up during their entrance or exit at the courtroom (Levine, 2018).
Bergström, M. (2016). Mutual Recognition in Civil and Criminal Justice: Towards Order and Method.
Bonett, K. (2020). Executing Arrest Warrants in the Homes of Third Parties: The Increased Role of Magistrates in Protecting Fourth Amendment Rights. Widener Commw. L. Rev., 29, 321.
Bunin, A. (2016). The Constitutional Right to Counsel at Bail Hearings. Crim. Just., 31, 23.Levine, K., 2018. Discipline and Policing. Duke LJ, 68, p.839.
DIDACE, D. (2020). DOCTRINE OF PRECEDENT. pdf.
Duff, R. A. (2018). The realm of criminal law. Oxford University Press.
Giménez, A. O. Civil Jurisdiction And Jury Court.
Holvast, N., & Mascini, P. (2020). Is the Judge or the Clerk Making the Decision?. International Journal for Court Administration, 11(2), 1-19.
Levine, K. (2018). Discipline and Policing. Duke LJ, 68, 839.
Shlom, A. (2020). Moving towards an Impartial Judiciary: Recommendations to Prevent and Discipline Judicial Bias. Widener Commw. L. Rev., 29, 135.
Wallace, D. (2018). The Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal and the Rules of Evidence. Australian Journal of Administrative Law, 25(3), pp.171-180.
Remember, at the center of any academic work, lies clarity and evidence. Should you need further assistance, do look up to our Law Assignment Help
Proofreading and Editing$9.00Per Page
Consultation with Expert$35.00Per Hour
Live Session 1-on-1$40.00Per 30 min.
Doing your Assignment with our resources is simple, take Expert assistance to ensure HD Grades. Here you Go....