Discretion In The Australian Criminal Justice System

The Australian Criminal Justice system has an intricate and diverse structure that makes it one of the most unique systems in the world. The Commonwealth of Australia was approved by the British Parliament in 1900 and came into existence on January 1, 1901. The federal constitution combined British and American practices, with a parliamentary government, but with two houses - the popularly elected House of Representatives and Senate representing the former colonies. This began the start of a new era of policing. (Findlay, Odgers, Yeo). The Commonwealth of Australia is a federalist government composed of a national government and six State governments. There are nine different criminal justice systems in Australia - six states, two territories, and one federal. The eight States and Territories have powers to enact their own criminal law, while the Commonwealth has powers to enact laws. Criminal law is administered principally through the federal, State and Territory police. (Chappell, Wilson, Heaton). In this essay an in depth analysis of the Australian criminal justice system will be given, along with a comparison to the United States criminal justice system throughout the essay. As well as an evaluation of the effectiveness of the system and finally a brief summary of how the Australian criminal justice system structure could be improved to better suit the evolving society. Australia has a complex and very intuitive system of policing that

Provision [SCRGSP], 2005; Jeffries and Bond, 2012). It is also widely discussed that there is an overrepresentation of Indigenous Australians in the criminal justice system itself (Jeffries and Bond, 2009), representing up to one quarter of prisoners in Australia (Makkai and Payne, 2003; Payne, 2005). This essay will address the current issues that Indigenous Australians face within the criminal justice system, particularly, with courts. The aim of this essay besides addressing these issues will also be to provide suggestions or alternatives that may help resolve the presented issues and improve the experience for Indigenous Australians in court.

This essay looks at Indigenous Australians in relation to the institution of ‘Criminal Law’. In this context, criminal law refers to legal processes such as police questioning, investigation and detainment as well as arrest, custody and bail. It also encompasses associated court procedures up to the point of sentencing. The focus will be to first outline the importance of criminal law to Indigenous Australians and then provide a critical analysis of the unique experiences and barriers that this group encounter in accessing criminal law in a positive way. Following this analysis, the development of possible ways to improve Indigenous access to criminal law will be discussed. Particular attention will be given to the way in which Indigenous Australians are affected by the transition of our modern justice system toward broader social justice concepts that incorporate risk management of potential criminal behaviour. From this discussion a conclusion will be drawn as to whether or not Indigenous Australians enjoy equality of criminal law and whether the structural elements of the law itself perpetuate Indigenous injustice and disadvantage.

In Section 4 of the Bail Act 1978, it states that ‘authorisation to be at liberty under this Act, instead of in custody’ . This is otherwise known as bail, the act of permitting a person to a brief period of freedom who

The Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (RCIADIC) in 1991 provided documentation on the death of indigenous Australians in prison or police custody. In doing so the report highlighted the substantial over representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Criminal Justice system and provided detailed analysis of underlying factors. The reports findings were believed to be the foundation of change. However, regardless of a range of policy changes and crime prevention programs in repose to the report, over representation in the criminal justice system remains. The issue is one of the most significant social justice and public policy issue in the contemporary Australian criminal justice system. The RCIADIC made 339 recommendations, most of which have been implemented into the criminal justice system over the past two decades. Never the less the systematic over representation remains prevalent. The purpose of this essay is to understand over representation as it exists in the contemporary criminal justice system. Particular emphasise will be placed on the levels of women and youths in the criminal justice system, their contact with the system and empirically based risk factors pertaining to over representation. An evaluation of alternative programs in the pre and post sentencing stage and the impact such programs would have on the over representation will be conducted.

Cunneens (2007) articles showed relative statistics, showing the negative effects of the relationship between the two groups, whether it is one groups wrong doing or not, the evidence shows that there is an issue that needs urgent attention and resolving. “Indigenous people were 17 times more likely to be held in custody than non-Indigenous people in Australia” this raw fact can be looked at from two different perspectives; number one the indigenous community are victimised by the police, or two a major percentage of the indigenous community are being involved in crime. Considering the indigenous population compared to the non indigenous community is so small, it does

The Public Policy of Crime and Criminal Justice, by Nancy E. Marion and Willard M. Oliver. Published by Prentice Hall. Copyright © 2006 by Pearso

In the criminal justice system, discretion is often performed by the police, prosecutors, judges and juries, correctional officials and

In his book that was produced at least seven years ago and sought to look at the criminal justice process, Nicola Padfield

The over-representation of Indigenous people in the criminal justice system is a large problem in society and reasons as to why this may be occurring need to be examined (Walker & McDonald, 1995; AIC, 2013). Indigenous Australians make up less than three per cent of the overall Australian population, however Indigenous people are over-represented in Australian prison populations, with imprisonment rates that are around 12 times those of the rest of the Australian population (AIC, 2013). Rates of over-representation are even higher in juvenile detention, with a 10-17 year old Indigenous person being around 24 times more likely to be in detention than a non-Indigenous person of the same age (AIC, 2013; Cunneen & White, 2011). Indigenous Australians overrepresentation in the criminal justice system is usually due to offences pertaining to violence and public disorder (ABS, 2010; Hogg & Carrignton, 2006). This is endorsed by the fact that Indigenous Australians currently make up 40 per cent of those imprisoned for assault offences (AIC, 2013). The over representation of Indigenous Australians in the criminal justice system may be attributed to a variety of reasons, known as risk factors (AIC, 2013).

In what ways is the indigenous justice paradigm in conflict with the principles of the traditional, adversarial American criminal justice system? In what ways do the principles of Native American justice complement more mainstream correctional initiatives?

The perception of the Australian criminal justice system’s legitimacy is determined by the actions of three institutions, and the manner in which they address issues of justice within society. For the criminal justice system to be seen with integrity and valued for its role, it is vital that all members of the community see the appropriate rectification of injustices through the police, courts and corrections. However, particular groups within society encounter the illegitimacy and social inequity embedded within these institutions, diminishing the effectiveness to which they fulfill their role. For women in particular, the institutions of the criminal justice system are notably unethical in their treatment of both victims and perpetrators of crime. Despite many reforms and recommendations for change, the criminal justice system ultimately fails in achieving justice for women, with the courts demonstrating the most significant attempt to eliminate social inequality and victimisation.

To map the development and recognition of disadvantage stemming from Aboriginality as a mitigating factor when sentencing Indigenous offenders in Australian courts.

On a bail bond, the accused and the sureties are the obligors, the accused being the principal, and the government as the obliged. In the event the conditions of the bail bond are

One of the earliest cases of bailment was Brabant & Co. v. King which held that a bailee must “exercise the same degree of care towards the preservation of the goods entrusted to him from injury which might reasonably be expected from a skilled storekeeper, acquainted with the risk to be apprehended either from the character of the storehouse itself, or of its locality.” The Southcote’s case held that a common bailee was strictly liable for any damage or loss of the goods in his possession even if the goods were stolen by force. But this was changed in Coggs V. Bernard which sets out the duties owed by a bailee and the six types of bailment.