Court Observation Report: Insights from R v Samantha SIMMONS Trial

This report presents an observation of the R v Samantha SIMMONS case, detailing the courtroom environment, the judge's demeanor, and the performance of the prosecutor and defense attorney. The observation took place on March 22, 2018, at the Downing Centre Court Complex in Sydney, Australia. The report analyzes the judge's impartiality, the prosecutor's competence, and the defense attorney's shortcomings. The observer highlights key aspects of the trial, including the examination and cross-examination of witnesses, and reflects on the lessons learned from the experience. The report also mentions the specific legal context of the case, referencing the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 and the appellant's arguments regarding the handling of documents. The report provides a detailed overview of the courtroom proceedings and offers insights into the practical application of legal principles.

Running head: COURT OBSERVATION
R v Samantha SIMMONS
Name of the student:
Name of the university:
Author note

1COURT OBSERVATION
Particulars
Name of the case: R v Samantha SIMMONS
Number of the case: 2017/00136168
Court visited 22nd March 2018
Judge name: R Prowse
Court location Downing Centre Court Complex
Liverpool St. Sydney
NSW 2000, Australia
Date of observation 22nd March 2018 from 9.00 am to 11 am
Nature of proceeding Appeal and Trial
Was the judge aware of this observation: Unknown to the observer
Type of proceeding of observation:
It was alleged that the appellant has inappropriately dealt with certain documents
and infringed the provisions of section 140 (4) of Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935.
However, the appellant has argued that he was forced by his counsel to admit some parts of
the allegation. I observed the examination of the appellant and cross-examination of his
counsel.
Courtroom environment:
The courtroom was quite big and well maintained. The seats were divided into
certain parts. Separate sitting arrangements were there for the family members of the parties,

2COURT OBSERVATION
observers and the other people. I was sitting in the desk of observer. The presiding officer
was quite reserve and heard both the parties with ultimate concentration. The courtroom was
silent during the proceeding.
Impression of presiding judge:
The presiding officer of the courtroom was quite reserved and well aware of the
facts of the case. It has been observed that he has maintained the courtroom environment
efficiently and his speeches were clear and audible. He has made certain objection when the
defence attorney had fumbled the cross-examination. He had described all the questionable
facts with dignity and cleared all the statements to both the parties. He gave fair chances to
the appellant so that he can easily conveyance with all the previously described comments.
However, he had made certain unreasonable stands in front of the jury. He was seemed to be
neutral in nature and talk about the judicial fairness. He had treated every party with dignity
and respect. All these characteristics have created pessimistic impression and I was quite sure
that he is treating everyone fairly.
Impression of prosecutor:
The prosecutor of the case was well conversant regarding the case and it has been
observed that he has done all the relevant research regarding the case law. He maintained all
the relevant jurisdictions and he was very confident regarding his case. During examining his
client, he did not take any long break and he put question in a concise way. His appearance
was quite professional and nothing made him distracted during the court hour.
Impression of defence attorney:
However, negative impression has been created in the case of defence counsel.
He had represented himself in an unorganised way and he had not done much homework with

3COURT OBSERVATION
his case file. All his papers were designed in an unorganised way and he has spent much time
for reshuffling those papers. The presiding officer of the case was very angry with him, as he
was distracted during cross-examination. It was quite strain to hear his voice clearly. He was
unable to represent himself professionally during the court session.
Learn from experience:
It was my first court observation and I had learnt a lot from the courtroom. The
questions and legal provisions cited by the prosecution had enriched my mind. The impartial
act of the presiding officer has pleased me and the professional outlooks of the attorneys have
helped to increase my respect towards the profession.

4COURT OBSERVATION
Reference:
R v Samantha SIMMONS [2017] SASCFC 49