Law report PDF

Preview

Summary

Sample law report from first assignment of class, be wary of copying court case names as these cases are not reported & have been submitted thru turnitin...

Description

Case Report The district proceedings observed was the highly publicized case of R v Michael Odisho, a former gang member. The defendant was present during a shooting that took place at a residential home in which they were shot and injured, and was being investigated for subsequent retaliatory attacks. The issue at hand was whether or not the evidence being used sufficiently linked the defendant to the crime scene. During my time in the court room, the defense attempted to prove that the DNA evidence linking the defendant to the crime was in fact transferred onto the exhibit (a $5 note) at an earlier period, and hence did not tie the accused to the shootings. Judge P Zahra oversaw the case, providing guidance to the jury, & correction where necessary.

Within the local case of R v Marilyn Carol, the elderly person was on trial for possession of stolen prescriptions and a Medicaid card under several names, including one under the name of their daughter. The issue at hand was whether or not the search that was conducted on the defendant’s vehicle was lawful, and hence whether or not the evidence being used was admissible. Magistrate M Barko oversaw the matter at hand.

Differences in Structure:

I observed that the structure of the two courts was quite different: the district case was pleaded before a jury, with barristers taking the lead on the cross examination, whilst solicitors

acted as assistants, providing information and context to the barristers as the case progressed. This was in contrast to the proceedings within the local court case of R v Carol, with no police officers ( aside from witnesses) present to oversee the proceedings, and a single solicitor on both sides pleading the case directly to the magistrate. Barristers and Judge Zahra wore robes & white wigs during the district case, None were seen during the local court hearing. Transcripts were also available for the district court case.

Another observation was the level of formality seen in the both courts: since the Defendant had previously featured on TV and the news, the Judge, citing a news report from the previous day, refused access to courtroom photographers in order to prevent bias within the jury. Furthermore, their presence required extra care, and the sensitive nature of the case meant that there was a police presence in order to ensure the safety of all parties. Barristers in the district court often addressed the jury directly, with the judge taking on ‘supervisory’ role. Conversely, the magistrate within the local court maintained a more informal setting, handling smaller cases such as tickets in the interim periods of the main hearing, and providing personal opinions and anecdotes to the solicitors as the case progressed.

Student Number: 5250479 Word Count: 700

Differences in Approach:

Aside from the obvious difference in structure both court rooms heard a very different style and process of questioning, with the district court’s prosecutors and defense relying on cross examinations of officers and experts to establish the facts behind the evidence. The local court held its focus on the use of statutes to establish whether or not the search had been conducted illegally. Magistrate M Barko used binding precedent(Vines, 2013) from several previous cases in order to assist in interpreting the statutes governing police searches, using the reasonable person test to determine that the search was indeed lawful and hence the defendant would be held liable for the stolen prescriptions.

Whilst Magistrate Barko relied on precedent(Vines, 2013) set by previous cases to directly interpret the law, Judge P Zahra maintained a supervisory role, ensuring that the arguments being raised before the jury were within the confines of the law. The contrast in the approach taken in both court rooms was dictated by the severity and intricacy of the cases: the district court handled an evidently more convoluted case with several murders and public shootings, creating a need for establishing the facts of a case where most of the evidence was collected 5 years ago. Conversely, Magistrate Barko was able to simply use the precedent (Vines, 2013) of higher courts, which a local court would be bound by, in order to make a summary judgement in a case where the facts & evidence were clearly set out.

Bibliography

Vines, P. (2013). Law and Justice in Australia (3rd ed., p. 331). Sydney: Oxford University Press

Appendix R v Michael Odisho ( NSW District Court, 2017/00279040, 4th March 2020) R v Marilyn Jannette Carroll ( NSW Local Court, 2019/00320030)...