*Please note that the links to the content in this Part will direct you to Westlaw AU.
To purchase an article, please email: [email protected] or contact us on 1300 304 195 (Australian customers) or +61 2 8587 7980 (international customers) during business hours (Mon-Fri, 8am-6pm AST).
The latest issue of the Journal of Judicial Administration (Volume 34 Part 2) contains the following material:
Articles
Unrepresented Accused in the Summary Courts: The Importance of Effective Legal Triage – Natalia Antolak-Saper and Jonathan Clough
In the adversarial system of justice, legal representation is essential to preventing miscarriages of justice. An unrepresented accused may be unable to understand complex legal principles and procedures, significantly hindering their ability to challenge the evidence presented against them. Lack of representation in criminal matters has impacts beyond the individual accused, placing additional burdens on judicial officers and other participants in the system. These issues are particularly acute in the Magistrates’ Court, where accused are less likely to be granted legal aid. Based on a preliminary study of unrepresented accused in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, this article begins with a discussion of the scale and impact of unrepresented accused on the courts, judicial officers and other court staff, and individual accused. It then discusses the concept of legal triage and its application in this context, before concluding with recommendations for reforming legal triage systems to improve access to justice.
The Criminal Priority Programme – a priority listing programme in the District Court of South Australia – represents a novel and progressive use of pre-recorded evidence. When all other Australian jurisdictions are increasing their reliance on pre-recorded evidence and, in particular, pre-recorded evidence hearings, South Australia, by virtue of the Criminal Priority Programme, is seeking to use priority trial listing practices instead of, or in conjunction with pre-recorded evidence hearings, with the overall effect of reducing reliance on “full pre-recording”. A key objective of pre-recorded evidence at the pre-trial stage is to reduce delay and the associated negative impacts of delay on both witnesses and the administration of justice. However, emerging research literature suggests that the widespread use of pre-recorded evidence hearings may, in fact, be contributing to delay, as well as a range of other unintended consequences across the criminal justice system. Arguably, priority listing programmes, which reduce reliance on pre-recorded evidence hearings, are capable of delivering the benefits of reduced delay while avoiding the problems that appear to be associated with the expanded use of pre-recorded evidence hearings. An evaluation of the first 12 months of the post-pilot Criminal Priority Programme in the District Court of South Australia provides early, but positive evidence of the use of priority listing practices to reduce delay while also reducing reliance on pre-recorded evidence hearings.
For the PDF version of the table of contents, click here: New Westlaw Australia – JJA Vol 34 No 2 Contents.
Click here to access this Part on New Westlaw AU
For general queries, please contact: [email protected].
