Court ReportEssay Preview: Court ReportReport this essayCourt ReportIndexSYNOPSISBackgroundReason for AppealThe Hearings ProceedingsAdjudicators ResponseOUTCOMESFormality of the CourtType of Legal Action HeardParty RepresentationSocio-Economic StatusThe Role of the Individuals at CourtAdjudicatorAppellantRespondentAppellants RepresentationArguments TenderedKey IssuesThe Burden of ProofPrecedentRemedies SoughtThe JudgementSynopsisThis report seeks to critically analyse various outcomes from observations on how the Australian legal system works in real life through the hearing before the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Case Hinton v. Regina (R). Following a description of the case and proceedings of the day, the report will explain and discuss the processes which have been undergone during the days proceedings.
I. IntroductionTo the report it is important to know that:It is not the purpose of this blog to analyse the status of the parties to the Bexar High Court case. Instead, the purpose of this blog to analyse the implications of the decision by the High Court in the case will involve what is described as a range of ‘high impact’ cases. It is to determine how it could be done without harming the Australian legal system, and what effect that could have on the legal rights of persons, organisations and states where the decision was made. There is no excuse for this approach, particularly in light of current legal and political events. It is therefore essential that the decision or evidence presented at the High Court (including the decisions of both High Court and the High Court) should be clearly supported by a range of legal, political, factual, organisational, scientific, legal, economic, legal profession and other relevant stakeholders. In particular, a more complete analysis of the impact that decisions to grant an asylum have on the welfare and the living conditions of persons needs to be undertaken. The Bexar High Court may now address these questions in the coming weeks. _______________________________________________________________________ A summary of the Bexar case is now being prepared:The trial judge and an appeal judge for the Victorian Supreme Court are scheduled to present evidence in late fall or early November 2013. In the event of a trial failure, a review will also be held to determine the likelihood of the court system going through a legal proceeding and the appropriate corrective action taken. _______________________________________________________________________ This first report is prepared using the latest version of the Whelan, McEwan and Whelan database, to give the opportunity for more timely information on cases brought by the people of Australia. As the case progresses it will be useful to know if the database can be adapted for other purposes, such as that of public access or public discussion as well as for public interest advocacy. It is necessary for people to be able to submit reports in the future and to obtain this information quickly. The Bexar High Court has provided us with information from an extensive network of witnesses, lawyers and others interested in seeking asylum in Australia including the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General, the Chief Justice of the High Court, various members of the Queensland High Court and the Supreme Court, as well as the former Attorney-General and the Australian Attorney-General. The current backlog of cases continues to grow and is likely to continue to grow. If the high court decides that the Bexar High Court has not sufficiently addressed the situation, it is reasonable for us to think there will be further cases brought in the coming years. To this end, each time the High Court hears an appeal the Court will consider relevant issues with respect to the issues raised before the High Court. The Court considers the following:• any relevant case arising out of these arguments in the course of the life of this country, including the cases relating to the Commonwealth and South Australia, whether the Australian legal system should be subjected to an equal legal treatment in the public interest and the welfare and benefit system under Australian law, the extent to which they support public confidence in the system and how appropriate the laws shall regulate human rights and, if appropriate, the nature of the relationship between the State and the Commonwealth within the meaning of the Freedom
I. IntroductionTo the report it is important to know that:It is not the purpose of this blog to analyse the status of the parties to the Bexar High Court case. Instead, the purpose of this blog to analyse the implications of the decision by the High Court in the case will involve what is described as a range of ‘high impact’ cases. It is to determine how it could be done without harming the Australian legal system, and what effect that could have on the legal rights of persons, organisations and states where the decision was made. There is no excuse for this approach, particularly in light of current legal and political events. It is therefore essential that the decision or evidence presented at the High Court (including the decisions of both High Court and the High Court) should be clearly supported by a range of legal, political, factual, organisational, scientific, legal, economic, legal profession and other relevant stakeholders. In particular, a more complete analysis of the impact that decisions to grant an asylum have on the welfare and the living conditions of persons needs to be undertaken. The Bexar High Court may now address these questions in the coming weeks. _______________________________________________________________________ A summary of the Bexar case is now being prepared:The trial judge and an appeal judge for the Victorian Supreme Court are scheduled to present evidence in late fall or early November 2013. In the event of a trial failure, a review will also be held to determine the likelihood of the court system going through a legal proceeding and the appropriate corrective action taken. _______________________________________________________________________ This first report is prepared using the latest version of the Whelan, McEwan and Whelan database, to give the opportunity for more timely information on cases brought by the people of Australia. As the case progresses it will be useful to know if the database can be adapted for other purposes, such as that of public access or public discussion as well as for public interest advocacy. It is necessary for people to be able to submit reports in the future and to obtain this information quickly. The Bexar High Court has provided us with information from an extensive network of witnesses, lawyers and others interested in seeking asylum in Australia including the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General, the Chief Justice of the High Court, various members of the Queensland High Court and the Supreme Court, as well as the former Attorney-General and the Australian Attorney-General. The current backlog of cases continues to grow and is likely to continue to grow. If the high court decides that the Bexar High Court has not sufficiently addressed the situation, it is reasonable for us to think there will be further cases brought in the coming years. To this end, each time the High Court hears an appeal the Court will consider relevant issues with respect to the issues raised before the High Court. The Court considers the following:• any relevant case arising out of these arguments in the course of the life of this country, including the cases relating to the Commonwealth and South Australia, whether the Australian legal system should be subjected to an equal legal treatment in the public interest and the welfare and benefit system under Australian law, the extent to which they support public confidence in the system and how appropriate the laws shall regulate human rights and, if appropriate, the nature of the relationship between the State and the Commonwealth within the meaning of the Freedom
I. IntroductionTo the report it is important to know that:It is not the purpose of this blog to analyse the status of the parties to the Bexar High Court case. Instead, the purpose of this blog to analyse the implications of the decision by the High Court in the case will involve what is described as a range of ‘high impact’ cases. It is to determine how it could be done without harming the Australian legal system, and what effect that could have on the legal rights of persons, organisations and states where the decision was made. There is no excuse for this approach, particularly in light of current legal and political events. It is therefore essential that the decision or evidence presented at the High Court (including the decisions of both High Court and the High Court) should be clearly supported by a range of legal, political, factual, organisational, scientific, legal, economic, legal profession and other relevant stakeholders. In particular, a more complete analysis of the impact that decisions to grant an asylum have on the welfare and the living conditions of persons needs to be undertaken. The Bexar High Court may now address these questions in the coming weeks. _______________________________________________________________________ A summary of the Bexar case is now being prepared:The trial judge and an appeal judge for the Victorian Supreme Court are scheduled to present evidence in late fall or early November 2013. In the event of a trial failure, a review will also be held to determine the likelihood of the court system going through a legal proceeding and the appropriate corrective action taken. _______________________________________________________________________ This first report is prepared using the latest version of the Whelan, McEwan and Whelan database, to give the opportunity for more timely information on cases brought by the people of Australia. As the case progresses it will be useful to know if the database can be adapted for other purposes, such as that of public access or public discussion as well as for public interest advocacy. It is necessary for people to be able to submit reports in the future and to obtain this information quickly. The Bexar High Court has provided us with information from an extensive network of witnesses, lawyers and others interested in seeking asylum in Australia including the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General, the Chief Justice of the High Court, various members of the Queensland High Court and the Supreme Court, as well as the former Attorney-General and the Australian Attorney-General. The current backlog of cases continues to grow and is likely to continue to grow. If the high court decides that the Bexar High Court has not sufficiently addressed the situation, it is reasonable for us to think there will be further cases brought in the coming years. To this end, each time the High Court hears an appeal the Court will consider relevant issues with respect to the issues raised before the High Court. The Court considers the following:• any relevant case arising out of these arguments in the course of the life of this country, including the cases relating to the Commonwealth and South Australia, whether the Australian legal system should be subjected to an equal legal treatment in the public interest and the welfare and benefit system under Australian law, the extent to which they support public confidence in the system and how appropriate the laws shall regulate human rights and, if appropriate, the nature of the relationship between the State and the Commonwealth within the meaning of the Freedom
BackgroundThe case of Hinton v. R. regards an appeal hearing against the 6 month imprisonment sentence given to Hinton for the act of committing three driving offences over a three month period. The three acts which Mr Hinton was charged with committing included; two cases of driving while disqualified and one charge of driving furiously. The charge of driving furiously was brought forward due to Mr Hinton, at the time, driving down the wrong side of the road at 150km/h with a suspended licence. Mr Hinton was uninsured to drive the car in addition to having both his partner and her children in the vehicle at the time. Unfortunately there was no reference to the date at which Mr Hinton was found guilty to these charges and sentenced to the aforementioned 6 month prison sentence.
Reason for AppealMr Hintons (Appellant) appeal hearing was on the 14th of March in the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court against The Queen (R.) (Respondent). The hearing was being presided over by Justice Gray. The appeal was made by the Appellant who believed he could present a special and exceptional circumstance for a suspension of his sentence for a time.
The Appellant claimed that his sentence should be suspended for the last three months of his partners pregnancy, as hers was considered a high risk pregnancy. The Appellant considered his presence would be a benefit for the pregnancy. This was considered by the Appellant as a mitigating circumstance in his case and fell into the category of Ðspecial and exceptional circumstances.
The Hearings ProceedingsDuring the days proceedings, the Appellant presented, through a barrister, the aforementioned argument regarding the Appellants beneficial presence during the final stages of his partners pregnancy. He claimed that his presence would bring both physical and emotional support to Mr Hintons partner. There was no physical evidence tendered from a medical practitioner to support such a claim. The Respondent retorted by bringing to the courts attention the point that the Appellant had “acted so recklessly” by endangering both his partner and her children. He did this during the aforementioned event at which he had been driving down the wrong side of Barton Hwy at 150km/h, unlicensed and uninsured.
The Respondent also argued that the pregnancy was not brought up in the original court case as it is not a credible circumstance in which to argue a special and exceptional circumstance, but instead a loophole though which the Appellant was using in an attempt to delay the serving of his full sentence.
The Respondent also brought to the courts attention the lack of hard evidence tendered by the Appellant to back up the claim that the Mr Hinton would be of a physical and emotional support.
Adjudicators ResponseJustice Gray informed the Appellant that they had “provided no where near enough evidence from a medical practitioner as to what positive benefits Mr Hinton could provide should he remain with his partner at this particular time.” Essentially, Justice Gray quashed the main argument for the Appellant. Justice Gray ruled in favour of the Respondent in this case, and the appeal request was rejected on the terms of insufficient evidence for special and exceptional circumstances.
OutcomesFormality of the CourtAs the hearing was taking place in the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court, there was and extremely high level of formality. The legal representation for both parties was attired in full gown and wig. The court also upheld the tradition of bowing to the adjudicator, Justice Gray, on both entry and exit. This is extremely formal in comparison to the Local Court in which just standing is held as an appropriate action for the entry and exit of the adjudicator. A higher level of respect is shown as the Supreme Court is held in higher stead in the hierarchy of the court system.
Type of Legal Action HeardThe legal action brought before the court was of a appellate nature, beginning in the Australian Capital Territory Magistrates Court before an appeal hearing was heard at the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court, attempting to prove special and exceptional circumstances. An appeal is launched when one party is not satisfied with a decision handed down by the court and believes itself to be unfairly done by. An appeal can be made to the next court up in the court system hierarchy by either party in any type of court case, whether the original case has produced a result or not. For example, if a criminal prosecutor wins a case but thinks the sentence is too light, they can appeal to the next court up in the hierarchy to rehear the case, and thus gain another