Courtroom Observation Report: Downing Centre Local and District Court

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.

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

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.