Source: http://www.summarycrime.com/2010/02/
Timestamp: 2020-04-09 23:18:42
Document Index: 277193222

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 8', 'art 4', 'art 1', 'art 1', 'art 3', 'art 4', 'art 2']

quis custodiet ipsos custodes: 01/02/10 - 01/03/10 Google
Labels: law reform, Magistrates' Court, notice to appear Links to this post
at 8:07 am Posted by Dr Manhattan
I posted last year about the potential abolition of Justices of the Peace.
The decision has been made to retain them, according to a press release from the Attorney-General last week. During the consultative round the submissions received were overwhelmingly opposed to scrapping the role (perhaps not surprising, given that 97% of submissions were from JPs themselves).
Planned changes include making appointments five years in duration rather than the present lifetime appointments, and introducing a code of conduct to deter abuses of the position.
(Incidentally, this might be a good moment to mention that we'll do what we can to keep past posts up-to-date, but as the list of previous posts grows it will get harder and harder to maintain their currency.
When you come across information on our site that has gone the way of the dodo, please feel free to drop us a line or post a comment. We'd appreciate it.)
Whatever the general rule of puttage might be (see The recent history of Browne v Dunn, above), a specific prohibition on the accused giving (or adducing) evidence now exists at s 358 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009.
Division 4 of Part 8.2 of the Act prohibits an unrepresented accused from personally cross-examining a protected person in the hearing of a sexual or family violence offence. It provides the Court with the ability to direct Legal Aid to act on the accused's behalf (they would anyway) and to provide directions to juries that no adverse inference should be drawn from the fact that a lawyer conducted the cross-examination.
Refusal of such assistance will have severe consequences. You can lead a horse to water without necessarily being able to get them to drink. Where an accused refuses the representation offered, s 357(5) provides,
(5) If the accused refuses the legal representation provided under subsection (3), or otherwise refuses to co-operate, the court must warn the accused that the accused will not be permitted to adduce evidence in relation to a fact in issue in order to contradict the evidence of a protected witness unless the evidence on which the accused intends to rely has been put to the protected witness during cross-examination.
This sub-section is then enforced by s 356.
Labels: advocacy, family violence, law reform, legislation, procedural fairness Links to this post
at 5:40 am Posted by Unknown
Labels: procedural fairness, sentencing, victims Links to this post
Labels: court, infringements, jurisdiction, Magistrates' Court Links to this post
Labels: appeals, commentary, drugs, possession, sentencing Links to this post
at 10:27 pm Posted by Unknown
at 5:08 pm Posted by Dr Manhattan
Last year Elucubrator posted on the expansion of the powers of judicial registrars.
The full list of matters that they may deal with are contained at rule 4 of the Magistrates' Court (Judicial Registrars) Rules 2005.
The problem with that rule is that it contains a long list of section numbers, and references to many different Acts without shedding much light on what they refer to. I've made up my own list below, and I find it useful to refer to when I need a reminder of the powers JRs may exercise.
A judicial registrar may deal with, exercising any and all powers of the Court, in the following proceedings:
(a) in a civil proceeding, all orders including final orders with the consent of the parties (but not family violence and family law matters, however the Rules are silent on matters involving the Stalking Intervention Orders Act 2008);
(ab) an order to bring a prisoner before a Court under r 19(1) of the Corrections Regulations 1998;
(ac) proceedings under ss 5, 5 and 7 of the Instruments Act 1958, including the ability to set aside judgments but not to re-hear proceedings;
(ad) the ability to summons parties to and conduct oral examinations, and the ability to make, vary or discharge instalment orders under the Judgment Debt Recovery Act 1984;
(b) the inspection of property and making of orders resulting from the execution of a general search warrant under s 78 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1989 (though not the power to issue such a warrant);
(c) small claims arbitration under the Magistrates' Court Act 1989 if the amount sought is under $5000;
(ca) the power to issue, recall and endorse warrants (except search warrants) under Part 4 Division 3 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1989.
(cb) to grant a s 110 re-hearing in a civil proceedings and s 94 in criminal proceedings (but not to hear these re-hearings), and to grant adjournments in any matter as considered appropriate;
(d) a pre-hearing conference for a civil proceeding under s 107 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1989;
(e)(i) proceedings for infringement or lodgeable infringement offences, but not drink-driving offences and others under s 49 of the Road Safety Act 1986;
(e)(ii) proceedings under the Infringements Act 2006, but not specific offences under that Act which typically involve non-compliance by the person with requirements of that Act;
(f) proceedings under the Magistrates' Court Civil Procedure Rules 1999, except interpleders over $5000, the power to approve an offer of compromise by a minor or disabled party, the power to grant an injunction or to make preliminary orders in regard to property except the power to require production of the property for inspection.
(fa) to receive applications and renewals for licenses under the Private Agents Act 1966;
(g) applications for shortening of time, licence restoration, interlock removal, etc. under s 50(4) of the Road Safety Act 1986;
and added last year and amended as of 2 February 2010 (notice given in Government Gazette S 42 Tuesday 2 February 2010),
(3) all powers of the Court in relation to diversion under s 59 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009.
Labels: diversion, judicial registrar, jurisdiction, Magistrates' Court Links to this post
Defence practitioners have sometimes found all their efforts to cast doubt on the occurrence of an offence washed away in a contest by s 55 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1989. This provision allowed a Court, if not satisfied of the indictable offence charged, to find in the alternative an offence of attempting to commit that same indictable offence.
The provision has been reenacted in the new Criminal Procedure Act 2009, and is now tucked away in Division 8, at s 76.
Labels: attempt, high court, i.o.t.s., iots, law reform, Magistrates' Court Links to this post
Labels: attempt, drugs, evidence, legislation Links to this post
at 8:20 am Posted by Dr Manhattan
One of the most troubling questions for practioners about the Evidence Act 2008 late last year was whether it was going to apply retrospectively.
There were problems with either option. If the applicable law depended on when the alleged offence occurred (or perhaps the charge was filed), practitioners would have to prepare themselves for a contested hearing using one set of rules one week, another set the following week, and then back to the first set the week after. Not an easy proposition when there is only a second to decide whether to rise and make an objection or not.
On the other hand, if every matter heard after January 1 was determined using the new rules, a lot of evidence which was considered legitimate at the time of its collection or production would later be deemed inadmissible. If courts used their new statutory discretion to let it in anyway, it would set up precedents for the use of judicial discretion making the new law almost identical with the old.
Parliament settled on a compromise. Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Evidence Act 2008 now includes transitional provisions that allows some evidence collected prior to January 1 to be admitted despite non-compliance with the new Act.
Here's an abridged summary of Schedule 2 Part 1:
1) Commencement day means January 1 2010.
2) All hearings commencing after January 1 2010 fall under the operation of the Evidence Act 2008, but actual hearings (not proceedings) that commenced prior to Jan 1 will continue to apply the old rules;
3) Disclosure order provisions under s 128A do not apply to orders made prior to 1 January 2010.
4) Summons and subpoena provisions do apply the new rules of Part 3.10 if the hearing they relate to takes place after 1 January 2010.
5) Sections 114 (exclusion of visual identification evidence) and 115 (exclusion of picture identification evidence) do not apply to identifications made prior to January 1 2010.
6) Sections 146 (evidence produced by computers) and 147 (evidence from business documents) do apply to documents produced prior to January 1 2010.
7) Sections 148 (judicial notice of attestations) and 149 (not necessary to provide further proof) do apply to attestations done before January 1 2010.
8) Division 2 of Part 4.2 (Matters of Official Public Record) applies to the sealing, signing and publication of documents prior to January 1 2010.
9) Agreed facts entered into under s 149AB(3) of the repealed Evidence Act 1958 remain effective under s 191(3)(a).
10) The requirements under s 139 for investigating officials to caution suspects or else be deemed to have acted improperly does not apply to situations occurring prior to January 1 2010.
There is a Part 2 to Schedule 2, but now that the full Act is in effect it's unlikely to have much work to do.
This transitional schedule was introduced by the Statute Law (Evidence Consequential Amendments) Act 2009, so doesn't appear in the original print of the Evidence Act 2008 (though it does appear in the reprint).
at 6:24 pm Posted by Dr Manhattan
Magistrate Raffaele Barberio announced to the Magistrates' Court at Moorabbin today that he would be resigning before April.
His lawyer, Peter Ward, told the court that Mr Barberio is quitting to protect the integrity of the Magistrates' Court of Victoria. He will be entering pleas of guilty to charges of assault and criminal damage over incidents that occurred outside his home in March and October of last year.
A sentencing hearing before a magistrate from interstate will take place on 7 April.
Labels: infringements, law reform Links to this post
Labels: infringements, road safety act Links to this post
Labels: constitution, court, law reform, Magistrates' Court Links to this post
at 5:35 am Posted by Unknown
Labels: victims Links to this post
Labels: charges, law reform, legislation, Magistrates' Court, notice to appear, police Links to this post
at 10:11 pm Posted by Dr Manhattan
The Judicial College of Victoria released the second part of their online evidence self-test yesterday.
There are ten questions to test your knowledge of relevance, opinion evidence and the discretions. Like the last part, you'll probably need to refer to the Evidence Act 2008 to complete it.
Labels: evidence, law reform, legislation, website Links to this post
Labels: commentary, human rights, infringements, law reform, legislation, Magistrates' Court, police, possession, privacy, search, weapons Links to this post
Labels: appeals, drugs, forensic procedure, legislation, police, possession, search, sentencing Links to this post