Welcome to HSC Legal Studies: News Watch

The Justice Maze is a ten minute YouTube clip produced by the CRC (Community Restorative Centre) which explains the NSW court and prison system in a way that avoids jargon and complicated legal language. It is directed at those people who are unfamiliar with the processes involved with arrest, trial and imprisonment.

CRC is a NSW community organisation dedicated to supporting people affected by the criminal justice system, particularly prisoners, ex-prisoners, their families and friends.  Teachers might find it a useful teaching aid while doing Crime in providing students with an overview of the criminal justice system from the perspective of the family of the offender.

You can now read about going to court, the process from arrest and questioning, bail, dealing with lawyers, court procedure, how to plead, hearings and trials, preparation, evidence, proof, examination in court, sentencing, and appeals online using this excellent resource Defend Yourself: Facing a charge in court by Tim Anderson.  If you are doing the Crime componenent of Legal Studies, this online guide will help you immensely.

A second online book Guilty your honour: representing yourself when facing a drink driving charge in New South Wales Courts by Helen Walsh is also available.  Both books are available from the Find Legal Answers website.

Use these resources in conjunction with the Legal Studies Research Guide - Crime and the LIAC Crime Library.  You will be well equipped to answer any question concerning a criminal case going to court.

I have revisited my earlier posting on double Jeopardy as it was not as clear as it should have been and have rewritten it significantly.  Thus, it is appearing as a new post.

The Crimes (Appeal and Review) Amendment (Double Jeopardy) Act 2009 makes further changes to the double jeopardy laws in New South Wales. The Act has now received assent and commenced operation on 24 September 2009.  The Act inserted a new section 68A into the Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW).

The new section 68A:

(1)    An appeal court must not:

(a)  

dismiss a prosecution appeal against sentence, or

(b)  

impose a less severe sentence on any such appeal than the court would otherwise consider appropriate,

because of any element of double jeopardy involved in the respondent being sentenced again.

This is what happened in the matter of R v King [2009] NSWCCA 117.  The case concerned the sexual assault on a girl under ten years of age.  The District Court Judge could have imposed a maximum sentence of 25 years, with a non parole period of 15 years.  However, the Judge sentenced King to imprisonment for two years and suspended the sentence as he had already been in custody for 15 months.  he was also given a bond for two years. 

There was such a public outcry at this sentence, that the Crown appealed against the leniency of this sentence saying that it was manifestly inadequate.  The Judges in the Appeal decision said  "the term of imprisonment that ought to have been passed upon the respondent by the Judge after a 25 per cent discount should have been in the vicinity of 9 years.  As there were no special circumstances warranting a reduction in the minimum period of custody, the non-parole period should have been six years and nine months.  Such a sentence would have shown due regard to the standard non-parole period notwithstanding that it was a sentence imposed after a plea. (pg 15, paragraph 70.) 

The Court of Criminal Appeal did increase the sentence to a term of imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of four years six months and a balance of term of two years six months.  However, if this case had been heard after this new legislation, the Court might well have imposed a higher sentence again.

Michael Pelly discusses the implications of this new legislation in a piece in The Australian "Power for NSW judges to act on 'lenient' sentences".

The Office of Public Prosecution  have Prosecution Guidelines that provide directions for Appeals against sentence. (see page 53.)  One factor they need to consider is "the element of double jeopardy involved in a prosecution/Crown appeal and its likely effect on the outcome (the probable imposition of a lesser sentence than was appropriate at first instance".  However, this new legislation will over ride this guideline rule.

How well does Australia treat its international students?  At the recent Australia and New Zealand Race Relations Roundtable, Human Rights Commissioners heard about many instances of racial harassment, abuse and violence directed at international students. Many areas of concern need to be addressed, including rights to non discrimination, equality of treatment, security of the person, access to justice, housing, information, freedom of religion and culture and labour rights.  The Commissioners resolved to:

"After the perfect storm: Indian students in Australia" by Janaki Bahahur, Lowy Institute for International Policy, 12 October 2009 documents some of the experiences of Indian students studying in Australia.  Additional media reports can be found on the ABC website.  Just type in "Indian students" and you will find reports of incidents involving indian students during 2009.

Being sent to prison is no more effective in reducing the risk of future re-offending than being threatened with prison, according to research conducted by the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research.  "The recidivism of offenders given suspended sentences: a comparison with full-time imprisonment" by Rohan Lulham, Don Weatherburn and Lorana Bartels compares a group of offenders given a suspended sentence of imprisonment with a group of offenders given a sentence of full-time imprisonment.

In cases where the offender had no previous experience of imprisonment, the Bureau found no significant difference in the likelihood of re-conviction between those who received a full-time sentence of imprisonment and those who were given a suspended sentence of imprisonment.  In cases where the offender had been previously sent to prison, the Bureau found offenders sent to prison were significantly more likely to re-offend than matched offenders given a suspended sentence of imprisonment.

For additional information about sentencing, and the use of suspended sentences, LIAC's Hot Topics 55: Sentencing (2005) provides a useful overview.