Review of Legal Proceedings

This document provides a review of legal proceedings, specifically focusing on the significant procedural issues raised during bail or sentencing hearings. It also critically assesses the role played by the underlying principles and structure of the criminal justice system in reaching those decisions. The document discusses specific cases and legislation related to the topic.

Student ID Student Name
Review of Legal Proceedings
1)
Identify the significant procedural issues raised during the bail or sentencing hearings you
observed in court.
In R v Christina Armatas, the legal counsel considered the hardship that would result if
the offender was fined heavily. The defendant is a mother with four children and no husband to
offer support in absence of the former. Therefore, demanding that she should pay a fine would
place an additional burden to the single mother who was already struggling to raise four children
by herself. R v Armatas is a simple case of low range PCA rather than DUI. Therefore, this case
does not require imprisonment. After consideration of the Mitigating Factors, the legal counsel
simply decided that her license should simply be denied for the period of 3months1. This is
somehow mandatory for all cases that involve low-range PCA. The Crimes Sentencing
Procedure Act 1999 No.82 stipulates that legal punishment is passed to defendants for specific
purposes. In this case, adequate punishment was provided to the defendant.
In the case of R v Seng Hong Mam, procedural law was applied in the sense that the
defendants previous criminal record was reviewed. Additionally, the defendants bail application
was denied due to the fact that he was a flight risk. Based on the outlines of the Crimes Act, it
was expected that the defendant would be imprisoned for not less than 10 years2. However, this
was not the case since other factors of defendant had to be considered. The defendant managed
to evade the 10-year sentence specifically due to his good character. Leniency was extended to
the defendant since he was able to plead guilty early enough, thereby, eliminating the need of
conducting investigations, which would be time consuming. He understood that he had done a
mistake and wrote a letter apologizing to the victim’s family. R v Seng Hong Mam is a case of
dangerous driving3. In addition to the fact that the judge explored factors associated with the
defendant, judgement was passed on the basis of guidelines outlines in R v Whyte and R v
Jurisic. When passing judgement, magistrates are expected to maintain consistency to the rule of
law. Discrete decisions should also be made by considering the mitigating and aggravating
factors4.
There are slight differences between the approach that is taken by local and District
courts. In the local courts, numerous cases have to be handled. Therefore, it is essential that the
process is sped up to prevent staling of the legal system. It is however, important to note that
1 R v Sadebath (1992) 16 MVR 138
2 52A (1) Crimes Act 1900
3 Road Transport Act 2013, s 110(3)
4 R v MacIntyre (1988) 38 A Crim R 135 at 139

Student ID Student Name
local courts don’t deal with gentle crimes whose frequency of occurrence tends to be high. In
order to prevent wastage of time, the Magistrates normally hasten the process by avoiding to
elaborate the law and which statutes were violated. Just like in the case of R v Christina Armatas,
focus is placed on the distinguish factors between cases. This is achieved by looking into the
background of defendants, mitigating factors and the seriousness of the committed. On the other
hand, district courts handle serious cases. Therefore, it is essential that all aspects of the law are
reviewed and explained. Not only is the background of the defendant reviewed, but magistrates
also review other cases in which principles for sentencing can be followed. In R v Seng Hong
Mam, the judge reviewed outlines of R v Whyte (2002) 55 NSWLR 252 and R v Jurisic (1998)
45 NSWLR 209 at 229–230 to explain the reasoning behind the sentence that was passed5. The
judge is then expected to combine precedence, statutory aspects and also use discretion to offer a
sentence that does not go beyond what is outlined as maximum penalty6. Leniency should be
avoided as much as possible in this case to ensure that objectives of criminal procedures are
fulfilled.
2)
Critically assess the role played by the underlying principles and/or structure of the
criminal justice system in reaching those decisions.
Sentencing of offenders is a complicated matter and a clear understanding of all factors
that are presented by the prosecution and defendant is needed. Judges will always review the
following areas before making a decision; the circumstance of the offender when committing the
crime, how many offences has the offender committed in the past, and how much does the
committed offence affect the state of the prosecution side. Judges will also analyze the mitigating
and aggravating factors and this basically creates the importance of procedural law. Procedural
law defines the rules that dictate how a court proceeding should be conducted, and how the
outcomes should be drawn. Substantive law is provided for use outside the court room, but once
an offence has been committed, then procedural law is applied to define how substantive laws
will be enforced. Procedural law ensures that there is a standard approach that can be used to
offer sentences to offenders. Otherwise, every judge would be using a different principle during
sentencing. Procedural law is a guiding tool since if various factors are overlooked by judges in
the local courts, then it will be possible to review them when the matter is taken to the court of
appeal7.
Legal principles that guide procedural law stipulate that sentencing should not be carried
out haphazardly since it is designed to achieve various objectives as outlined in the Crimes
Sentencing Procedure Act 1999 No.82. In any case, sentencing is meant to protect the society
5 R v McNaughton (2006) 66 NSWLR 566 at [25]
6 Kerr v R [2016] NSWCCA 218 at [69]
7 Hollander-Blumoff R, Tyler TR. Procedural justice and the rule of law: Fostering legitimacy in
alternative dispute resolution. J. Disp. Resol

Student ID Student Name
interests while ensuring that the offenders can learn and avoid to repeat the mistakes. Even for
simple mistakes like R v Armatas, some form of punishment should be offered to deter the
offender from repeating the same mistake. If an offender is forgiven for a mistake, they end up
becoming more susceptible towards repeating the same offence or even worse. Therefore,
offering punishment ensures that a repeat of the same will always be avoided.
The justice system structure is designed differently so as to enable handling of different
cases by different judges. A magistrate at the district court understands what is needed to
prosecute an offender like R v Mam. This is similar for a local magistrate. If all this case were
mixed up in one court, then the justice system would definitely stall8. The approach that is taken
by magistrates in the different courts is different. However, a linking factor revolves around
discretion. All magistrates should and must make decisions that fall within the specified limits.
Discretion in decision making makes it impossible to have a single outcome for all cases since all
magistrates have different identities. However, where cases are similar, then a similar approach
has to be taken. The magistrate in R v Mam uses principles outlined in cases such as R v Jurisic
and R v Whyte (2002) so to understand the approaches that were taken during passing of
sentences during those instances9.
The local court relies on the decision-making capabilities of a single person. The
magistrate will normally listen to a case, then make a discrete decision based on factors of a
crime that have been identified10. A proceeding in the local court is known as a hearing and the
magistrate is solely takes with deciding and differentiating between fact and law. The magistrate
will listen to presented evidence, and decide the guilt of the accused. Sentence in local courts
will normally not exceed 2 years. Criminal matters that warrant higher jail terms will normally
be referred to district courts. District courts on the on the other hand are known as middle courts
and they mostly handle “indicatable” issues other than murder. The district court incorporates the
jury to decide the guilt of a person. Sentencing on the other hand is passed by the magistrate.
Bibliography
Books
8 Anleu, S.R. and Mack, K., 2007. Magistrates, magistrates courts, and social change. Law &
Policy, 29(2),
9 Hunter, R., Anleu, S.R. and Mack, K., 2016. Judging in lower courts: Conventional, procedural,
therapeutic and feminist approaches. International journal of law in context, 12(3).
10 Tyler TR. Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the effective rule of law. Crime and justice. 2003
Jan

Student ID Student Name
Anleu, S.R. and Mack, K., 2007. Magistrates, magistrates’ courts, and social change. Law &
Policy, 29(2), pp.183-209.
Hollander-Blumoff R, Tyler TR. Procedural justice and the rule of law: Fostering legitimacy in
alternative dispute resolution. J. Disp. Resold. 2011:1.
Hunter, R., Anleu, S.R. and Mack, K., 2016. Judging in lower courts: Conventional, procedural,
therapeutic and feminist approaches. International journal of law in context, 12(3), pp.337-360.
Tyler TR. Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the effective rule of law. Crime and justice. 2003
Jan 1;30:283-357.
Cases
R v Sadebath (1992) 16 MVR 138
R v McNaughton (2006) 66 NSWLR 566 at [25]
Kerr v R [2016] NSWCCA 218 at [69]
R v MacIntyre (1988) 38 A Crim R 135 at 139
Legislation
Road Transport Act 2013, s 110(3)
52A (1) Crimes Act 1900