Courtroom Observation Report: Downing Centre Local and District Court
VerifiedAdded on  2024/06/28
|8
|2695
|247
AI Summary
This report details an observation of a criminal case at the Downing Centre Local and District Court in Sydney, New South Wales. The focus is on analyzing the judge's conduct in terms of neutrality, respect, and voice, examining how these aspects contribute to procedural fairness and public perception of the court system. The report explores the judge's ability to maintain impartiality, treat participants with dignity, and provide a platform for all parties to voice their perspectives. It also assesses the judge's effectiveness in ensuring a fair and transparent process, ultimately evaluating the overall impact of the judge's conduct on the court's legitimacy and the public's trust in the justice system.
Contribute Materials
Your contribution can guide someone’s learning journey. Share your
documents today.
Court Observation Exercise v1 2018
1
Courtroom Observation Report
University:___________________________________
Name:_______________________________________
Student Number: _____________________________
Unit:________________________________________
Introduction
There are two main sources of law in Australia, case law or common law, based on
the decisions of judges in the superior courts, and legislation, the law made by
Parliament. Because of the Federal system of Government in Australia, we have:
1. Court decisions and legislation made by Federal Courts and Federal
Parliament, and
2. Court decisions and legislation made by State Courts and State Parliaments.
Judges are responsible for making decisions in court are critical to the system
achieving procedural fairness and in turn engendering community trust in authorities
Instrumental in the process is the conduct of the Judge. Body language and
behavioral aspects such as voice, neutrality, and respectful treatment are central to
how the court system is perceived.
Judges must be aware and pay attention to creating fair outcomes, they should also
tailor their actions, language, and responses to the public’s expectations of
procedural fairness. By doing so, these judges will establish themselves as legitimate
authorities; substantial research suggests that increased compliance with court
orders and decreased recidivism by criminal offenders will result. Procedural fairness
also will lessen the difference in how minority populations perceive and react to the
courts.
1
Courtroom Observation Report
University:___________________________________
Name:_______________________________________
Student Number: _____________________________
Unit:________________________________________
Introduction
There are two main sources of law in Australia, case law or common law, based on
the decisions of judges in the superior courts, and legislation, the law made by
Parliament. Because of the Federal system of Government in Australia, we have:
1. Court decisions and legislation made by Federal Courts and Federal
Parliament, and
2. Court decisions and legislation made by State Courts and State Parliaments.
Judges are responsible for making decisions in court are critical to the system
achieving procedural fairness and in turn engendering community trust in authorities
Instrumental in the process is the conduct of the Judge. Body language and
behavioral aspects such as voice, neutrality, and respectful treatment are central to
how the court system is perceived.
Judges must be aware and pay attention to creating fair outcomes, they should also
tailor their actions, language, and responses to the public’s expectations of
procedural fairness. By doing so, these judges will establish themselves as legitimate
authorities; substantial research suggests that increased compliance with court
orders and decreased recidivism by criminal offenders will result. Procedural fairness
also will lessen the difference in how minority populations perceive and react to the
courts.
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
Court Observation Exercise v1 2018
2
Aims of the observation
This court observation report aims to help you to understand the courts process and how the
major parties conduct themselves in court.
Task
You are to visit the Downing Centre Court complex in Liverpool Street Sydney and observe a
court case. You should then complete the attached form and hand in to your lecturer.
Court Visited: Downing Centre local and District 4
Judge Name: Magistrate P Strewart
Court Location: New South Wales
Date(s) of observation: 24 April 2018
Type(s) of proceedings observed: Criminal
Was the judge aware of this observation? No
Neutrality
People bring their disputes to the court because they view judges as neutral,
principled decision makers who make decisions based upon rules and not personal
opinions, and who apply legal rules consistently across people and over cases.
Tom Tyler, “Procedural Justice and the Courts,” Court Review
Consider, for example, whether the judge:
§ displayed judicial fairness and impartiality toward all parties;
§ acted in the interests of the parties without regard to personal prejudices;
§ listened carefully and impartially;
§ applied rules consistently across people and over cases;
§ maintained a neutral demeanor or expression while in court;
§ was open, clear, and transparent about how the rules of law were applied and how
decisions were being made;
§ consistently treated participants equally and displayed behavior appropriate for the
situation;
§ was unhurried, patient and careful.
1. How would you describe this judge’s ability to be neutral,
principled and consistent?
During the entire proceedings of the R.v Shipsey [2018] NSWLC 4, Magistrate P
Stewart was very neutral towards both the parties to the case. The charges were there
on the accused in relation to supplying the prohibited drugs cannabis in 4.5 kilograms
and thereby contradiction with the section 25 (1) Drug (Misuse and Trafficking) Act
1985. The accused first pleaded the guilty before judge and therefore the court set the
time for deciding the ultimate verdict of case. However at later stage traversal plea was
2
Aims of the observation
This court observation report aims to help you to understand the courts process and how the
major parties conduct themselves in court.
Task
You are to visit the Downing Centre Court complex in Liverpool Street Sydney and observe a
court case. You should then complete the attached form and hand in to your lecturer.
Court Visited: Downing Centre local and District 4
Judge Name: Magistrate P Strewart
Court Location: New South Wales
Date(s) of observation: 24 April 2018
Type(s) of proceedings observed: Criminal
Was the judge aware of this observation? No
Neutrality
People bring their disputes to the court because they view judges as neutral,
principled decision makers who make decisions based upon rules and not personal
opinions, and who apply legal rules consistently across people and over cases.
Tom Tyler, “Procedural Justice and the Courts,” Court Review
Consider, for example, whether the judge:
§ displayed judicial fairness and impartiality toward all parties;
§ acted in the interests of the parties without regard to personal prejudices;
§ listened carefully and impartially;
§ applied rules consistently across people and over cases;
§ maintained a neutral demeanor or expression while in court;
§ was open, clear, and transparent about how the rules of law were applied and how
decisions were being made;
§ consistently treated participants equally and displayed behavior appropriate for the
situation;
§ was unhurried, patient and careful.
1. How would you describe this judge’s ability to be neutral,
principled and consistent?
During the entire proceedings of the R.v Shipsey [2018] NSWLC 4, Magistrate P
Stewart was very neutral towards both the parties to the case. The charges were there
on the accused in relation to supplying the prohibited drugs cannabis in 4.5 kilograms
and thereby contradiction with the section 25 (1) Drug (Misuse and Trafficking) Act
1985. The accused first pleaded the guilty before judge and therefore the court set the
time for deciding the ultimate verdict of case. However at later stage traversal plea was
Court Observation Exercise v1 2018
3
made on the behalf of accused however no application was made regarding
adjournment because of CRISP being not served. There was complete transparency in
relation to the application of the laws over the present case of the parties and they were
allowed to use these laws for claiming the defense if they fall in any relevant category.
In order to make the system of court more supportive to the parties there were new
electronic microphones and mikes that were used by the judge so that the parties could
listen in relation to what is being said and declared by the judge clearly. The main focus
of the judge throughout the case was there in the best interest of the parties to the case
only and therefore he made every effort to get to the right decisive conclusion by
applying the relevant laws (The Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration
Incorporated, 2010).
The judge was at the time when the parties were present for the final decision hearing
before the court they were being treated in the well manner and both the side were
allowed to put their sides in relation to the ultimate decisions of the case they want.
Neither of them was either stopped in between and nor their contention were overlooked
throughout the process of hearing and the contention of them was hear properly and the
same were analyses against the applicable laws and regulations. The judge was strictly
neutral for the decision making in this case and adhered to the principles to stay as
neutral, and relay on the principles and legal applicable provisions. He therefore does
not allow the filling of the traversal plea after accepting the plea of guilty. The decision
of the judge to not to accept traversal plea at the later stage was totally based on the
evidences produced through recordings before the court. The judge was focused
towards deciding the case which was technically justifiable in terms of applicable laws
and developed court practices. Therefore he also allowed both the parti4es to prove
their side and he was not intruding while permitting them to present the case. However
he could not permit the filing of the traversal application for withdrawal of the plea of
guilty on the ground which was not legally feasible and thus in this was he completely
performed his job by adopting the neutral approach and adopting the applicable laws in
the consistent manner.
3
made on the behalf of accused however no application was made regarding
adjournment because of CRISP being not served. There was complete transparency in
relation to the application of the laws over the present case of the parties and they were
allowed to use these laws for claiming the defense if they fall in any relevant category.
In order to make the system of court more supportive to the parties there were new
electronic microphones and mikes that were used by the judge so that the parties could
listen in relation to what is being said and declared by the judge clearly. The main focus
of the judge throughout the case was there in the best interest of the parties to the case
only and therefore he made every effort to get to the right decisive conclusion by
applying the relevant laws (The Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration
Incorporated, 2010).
The judge was at the time when the parties were present for the final decision hearing
before the court they were being treated in the well manner and both the side were
allowed to put their sides in relation to the ultimate decisions of the case they want.
Neither of them was either stopped in between and nor their contention were overlooked
throughout the process of hearing and the contention of them was hear properly and the
same were analyses against the applicable laws and regulations. The judge was strictly
neutral for the decision making in this case and adhered to the principles to stay as
neutral, and relay on the principles and legal applicable provisions. He therefore does
not allow the filling of the traversal plea after accepting the plea of guilty. The decision
of the judge to not to accept traversal plea at the later stage was totally based on the
evidences produced through recordings before the court. The judge was focused
towards deciding the case which was technically justifiable in terms of applicable laws
and developed court practices. Therefore he also allowed both the parti4es to prove
their side and he was not intruding while permitting them to present the case. However
he could not permit the filing of the traversal application for withdrawal of the plea of
guilty on the ground which was not legally feasible and thus in this was he completely
performed his job by adopting the neutral approach and adopting the applicable laws in
the consistent manner.
Court Observation Exercise v1 2018
4
Respect
Respect includes treating people well, that is, with courtesy and politeness, and showing
respect for people’s rights.
Providing people with information about what to do, where to go, and when to appear, all
demonstrate respect for both those people and their right to have their problems handled
fairly by the courts.
Tom Tyler, “Procedural Justice and the Courts,” Court Review
Consider, for example, whether the judge:
§ provided participants with specific information about what to do, where to go, and when to appear;
§ treated everyone with courtesy, dignity, and respect;
§ maintained appropriate courtroom tone & atmosphere;
§ demonstrated appropriate consideration for the rights of all persons in the court;
§ demonstrated an intention to do what is right for everyone involved;
§ helped interested parties understand decisions and what parties must do as a result;
§ used clear language when speaking to jurors, litigants, witnesses, and attorneys;
§ demonstrated respect for people’s time and acknowledged their patience as needed;
§ demonstrated interest in the needs, problems, and concerns of participants;
§ seemed prepared for the proceedings;
§ demonstrated appropriate body language (e.g., eye contact, facial expressions, posture, attire);
§ demonstrated respectful voice quality (e.g., pitch, volume, tone);
§ clearly articulated awareness of the practical impact on the parties of the judge’s rulings, including the
effect of delay and increased litigation expense;
§ clearly explained the reasons for his/her decisions when appropriate.
2. How would you describe this judge’s respect for people and their rights?
Throughout the court observation of the court in the given case the judge was
very respectful towards the rights of the parties to the case. They were treated in
the dignified manner and I found him to be very polite and helpful towards the p-
arties to the case in relation to asking them about the necessities of procedural
nature that were found to be not there in the drafts of the parties, he was very
supportive in guiding them to what are the all requirements that are required to
be complied by them in their matter though listing the matters. The temperament
and the way of dealing with the parties to the case were also found to be very
good and the good atmosphere was there. In the hearing of the parties it was
observed that the judge was keen to decide the case in terms of actual justice
and therefore he tried almost efforts to hears the arguments of the parties and
took into consideration all the material supplied by the in relation to case. His
way of dealing was very goods towards the parties and he was found to be very
patients and very much concerned for making the decision right and on time.
The postures and facial expression of the judge was also very good and they
were not affected by there work pressure which he has while setting over the
chair of the judge and that he have to deal with the various kinds of issues and
4
Respect
Respect includes treating people well, that is, with courtesy and politeness, and showing
respect for people’s rights.
Providing people with information about what to do, where to go, and when to appear, all
demonstrate respect for both those people and their right to have their problems handled
fairly by the courts.
Tom Tyler, “Procedural Justice and the Courts,” Court Review
Consider, for example, whether the judge:
§ provided participants with specific information about what to do, where to go, and when to appear;
§ treated everyone with courtesy, dignity, and respect;
§ maintained appropriate courtroom tone & atmosphere;
§ demonstrated appropriate consideration for the rights of all persons in the court;
§ demonstrated an intention to do what is right for everyone involved;
§ helped interested parties understand decisions and what parties must do as a result;
§ used clear language when speaking to jurors, litigants, witnesses, and attorneys;
§ demonstrated respect for people’s time and acknowledged their patience as needed;
§ demonstrated interest in the needs, problems, and concerns of participants;
§ seemed prepared for the proceedings;
§ demonstrated appropriate body language (e.g., eye contact, facial expressions, posture, attire);
§ demonstrated respectful voice quality (e.g., pitch, volume, tone);
§ clearly articulated awareness of the practical impact on the parties of the judge’s rulings, including the
effect of delay and increased litigation expense;
§ clearly explained the reasons for his/her decisions when appropriate.
2. How would you describe this judge’s respect for people and their rights?
Throughout the court observation of the court in the given case the judge was
very respectful towards the rights of the parties to the case. They were treated in
the dignified manner and I found him to be very polite and helpful towards the p-
arties to the case in relation to asking them about the necessities of procedural
nature that were found to be not there in the drafts of the parties, he was very
supportive in guiding them to what are the all requirements that are required to
be complied by them in their matter though listing the matters. The temperament
and the way of dealing with the parties to the case were also found to be very
good and the good atmosphere was there. In the hearing of the parties it was
observed that the judge was keen to decide the case in terms of actual justice
and therefore he tried almost efforts to hears the arguments of the parties and
took into consideration all the material supplied by the in relation to case. His
way of dealing was very goods towards the parties and he was found to be very
patients and very much concerned for making the decision right and on time.
The postures and facial expression of the judge was also very good and they
were not affected by there work pressure which he has while setting over the
chair of the judge and that he have to deal with the various kinds of issues and
Secure Best Marks with AI Grader
Need help grading? Try our AI Grader for instant feedback on your assignments.
Court Observation Exercise v1 2018
5
matters on the daily basis. He was very keen towards deciding the case on time
so that delay does not affect the actual and desired justice and while making the
judgment or pronouncement of ordering nature he explained the reason of the
order for the assistance of the parties to the ca se (The Australasian Institute of
Judicial Administration Incorporated, 2010).
Voice
People want to have the opportunity to tell their side of the story in their own words before
decisions are made about how to handle the dispute or problem. Having an opportunity to
voice their perspective has a positive effect upon people’s experience with the legal system
irrespective of their outcome, as long as they feel that the authority sincerely considered their
arguments before making their decisions.
Tom Tyler, “Procedural Justice and the Courts,” Court Review
Consider, for example, whether the judge:
§ allowed participants to voice their perspectives/arguments;
5
matters on the daily basis. He was very keen towards deciding the case on time
so that delay does not affect the actual and desired justice and while making the
judgment or pronouncement of ordering nature he explained the reason of the
order for the assistance of the parties to the ca se (The Australasian Institute of
Judicial Administration Incorporated, 2010).
Voice
People want to have the opportunity to tell their side of the story in their own words before
decisions are made about how to handle the dispute or problem. Having an opportunity to
voice their perspective has a positive effect upon people’s experience with the legal system
irrespective of their outcome, as long as they feel that the authority sincerely considered their
arguments before making their decisions.
Tom Tyler, “Procedural Justice and the Courts,” Court Review
Consider, for example, whether the judge:
§ allowed participants to voice their perspectives/arguments;
Court Observation Exercise v1 2018
6
§ demonstrated to the parties that their story or perspective had been heard;
§ behaved in a manner that showed the judge had fully considered the case as presented through
witnesses, arguments, and documents before the court;
§ attended, where appropriate, to the participants’ comprehension of the proceedings.
3. How would you describe this judge’s skill at providing the participants a
voice in the proceedings?
When the traversal application was made before the court in order to withdraw
the pleas of guilty as agreed earlier in order to know the consequences of same,
it was allowed by the judge even where there was no question about the guilty
of the accused. He was given the right to present the case of doing so with the
assistance of the legal counsel and after receiving the arguments of him in
relation of traversal of plea of guilty only the judge denied the fact of non
maintenance of traversal application. This conduct on the part of the judge
shows a very supportive attitude towards the parties to the case. He denied the
argument of the accused by presenting the list of supportive judgment and
explained the reason of why he does not accept his subsequent plea of
traversal.
During the argumentation of the parties to the case, he intervened and marked
questions in relation to the issues and matters that according to him were either
incomplete or required further clarification. This shows the participative attitude
of the judge through the entire court process and it is one of the significant
characteristics of a judge to be participative in rendering the justice in actual
sense. The participate role of the judge during the presentation of the argument
of the parties was clear evidence of the good attitude of the judge towards the
parties and his interest in making the judgment that is likely to serve the interest
of the parties to the case without prejudice to the public in general and not to be
against the law. He was also very particular about the argumentation of the
parties and secured the discipline throughout the proceedings by not allowing
the unnecessary argument advance by the other party to the case. These all
conduct on the part of the judge were found to be very supportive in the decision
making.
4. If you were to appear before this judge as a litigant, would you have
confidence that this judge would treat you fairly? Why or why not?
If I would have to appear before this judge as litigant for the redressed of
dispute of any nature I would defiantly had the confidence in the working of him.
6
§ demonstrated to the parties that their story or perspective had been heard;
§ behaved in a manner that showed the judge had fully considered the case as presented through
witnesses, arguments, and documents before the court;
§ attended, where appropriate, to the participants’ comprehension of the proceedings.
3. How would you describe this judge’s skill at providing the participants a
voice in the proceedings?
When the traversal application was made before the court in order to withdraw
the pleas of guilty as agreed earlier in order to know the consequences of same,
it was allowed by the judge even where there was no question about the guilty
of the accused. He was given the right to present the case of doing so with the
assistance of the legal counsel and after receiving the arguments of him in
relation of traversal of plea of guilty only the judge denied the fact of non
maintenance of traversal application. This conduct on the part of the judge
shows a very supportive attitude towards the parties to the case. He denied the
argument of the accused by presenting the list of supportive judgment and
explained the reason of why he does not accept his subsequent plea of
traversal.
During the argumentation of the parties to the case, he intervened and marked
questions in relation to the issues and matters that according to him were either
incomplete or required further clarification. This shows the participative attitude
of the judge through the entire court process and it is one of the significant
characteristics of a judge to be participative in rendering the justice in actual
sense. The participate role of the judge during the presentation of the argument
of the parties was clear evidence of the good attitude of the judge towards the
parties and his interest in making the judgment that is likely to serve the interest
of the parties to the case without prejudice to the public in general and not to be
against the law. He was also very particular about the argumentation of the
parties and secured the discipline throughout the proceedings by not allowing
the unnecessary argument advance by the other party to the case. These all
conduct on the part of the judge were found to be very supportive in the decision
making.
4. If you were to appear before this judge as a litigant, would you have
confidence that this judge would treat you fairly? Why or why not?
If I would have to appear before this judge as litigant for the redressed of
dispute of any nature I would defiantly had the confidence in the working of him.
Court Observation Exercise v1 2018
7
Since from the first hearing the case to the decision making by him, he was very
supportive and his attitude towards the participants in the proceeding was very
good. He was not found to be one of the judges who in the light of their work
pressure uses improper language or improper behavior with the parties to the
case. His calmness’ while allowing the parties to present their case and then
taking active participation in relation the arguments presented by the parties and
asking for further clearance of the issues are all the characteristics that are
required to be there in every judge in deciding the case. In the proceeding of
case, observed by me he was impartial in relation to the two sides of the case
and they were provided equal chance of hearing and resenting the matter even
when there was not issue in relation to the guilty of the accused once he had
accepted the plea of guilty. This attitude of him is another reason of having
confidence in his working (Transparency International Secretariat, 2012).
He was very supportive in relation to guiding the parties of the case about the
technical compliance. His acceptance and denial of the arguments of both the
parties were totally based on the legal arguments given by him in the light of the
applicable law and the decided cases of precedent in nature. These ensure the
complete transparency and remove the issue of biasness form the case. The
fair decision making is the almost requirement in the justice system otherwise
there is no need of the judges and courts if they cannot work impartially. Thus I
would have defiantly presented my case before this court and would have
confidence in the working of the judge of the present case. The complete
fairness, reasoned decision and positive attitude of the judges are all that is
required to be there in the justice system and these features are the only tool to
make the people to have faith and trust in the working of court.
7
Since from the first hearing the case to the decision making by him, he was very
supportive and his attitude towards the participants in the proceeding was very
good. He was not found to be one of the judges who in the light of their work
pressure uses improper language or improper behavior with the parties to the
case. His calmness’ while allowing the parties to present their case and then
taking active participation in relation the arguments presented by the parties and
asking for further clearance of the issues are all the characteristics that are
required to be there in every judge in deciding the case. In the proceeding of
case, observed by me he was impartial in relation to the two sides of the case
and they were provided equal chance of hearing and resenting the matter even
when there was not issue in relation to the guilty of the accused once he had
accepted the plea of guilty. This attitude of him is another reason of having
confidence in his working (Transparency International Secretariat, 2012).
He was very supportive in relation to guiding the parties of the case about the
technical compliance. His acceptance and denial of the arguments of both the
parties were totally based on the legal arguments given by him in the light of the
applicable law and the decided cases of precedent in nature. These ensure the
complete transparency and remove the issue of biasness form the case. The
fair decision making is the almost requirement in the justice system otherwise
there is no need of the judges and courts if they cannot work impartially. Thus I
would have defiantly presented my case before this court and would have
confidence in the working of the judge of the present case. The complete
fairness, reasoned decision and positive attitude of the judges are all that is
required to be there in the justice system and these features are the only tool to
make the people to have faith and trust in the working of court.
Paraphrase This Document
Need a fresh take? Get an instant paraphrase of this document with our AI Paraphraser
Court Observation Exercise v1 2018
8
References
The Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration Incorporated, 2010. Guide
to Judicial Conduct.
Transparency International Secretariat 2012, Judges welcome un
endorsement of judicial code of conduct. Available at:
https://www.transparency.org/news/pressrelease/judges_welcome_un_e
ndorsement_of_judicial_code_of_conduct. [Accessed on: 30 July 2018]
8
References
The Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration Incorporated, 2010. Guide
to Judicial Conduct.
Transparency International Secretariat 2012, Judges welcome un
endorsement of judicial code of conduct. Available at:
https://www.transparency.org/news/pressrelease/judges_welcome_un_e
ndorsement_of_judicial_code_of_conduct. [Accessed on: 30 July 2018]
1 out of 8
Related Documents
![[object Object]](/_next/image/?url=%2F_next%2Fstatic%2Fmedia%2Flogo.6d15ce61.png&w=640&q=75){kind=small}
Your All-in-One AI-Powered Toolkit for Academic Success.
 +13062052269
info@desklib.com
Available 24*7 on WhatsApp / Email
![[object Object]](/_next/static/media/star-bottom.7253800d.svg)
Unlock your academic potential
© 2024  |  Zucol Services PVT LTD  |  All rights reserved.