Outstanding.

The nail has been hit on the head.

You have an insight due to your position like few do, and for a joe bloggs who feels this way, no one seems to listen.

I hope those with the ability to do so take on board what you are saying.

It needs to change, otherwise legal action, regardless of the outcome will become the power play of the 21st century.

Thankfully, in South Australia, idiot judges are being questioned on this matter. A person who shot out the eye of an innocent man was released on a good behaviour bond. The government appealed, and the criminal was locked up. A lawyer who killed a cyclist, then drove off ringing several people in his efforts to get away, is now back in court. A disqualified, drunk 16 year old who killed a motorcyclist with a car and who was given a 2 year suspended sentence because of his 'psychological' problems has had his case sent back to the DPP by the government.

The problem of inadequate sentencing still remains. The SA government has made the feel-good gesture of raising the maximum penalty for hit-run drivers to life imprisonment, when they should be raising the minimum jail term. Unworldly judges cannot be trusted with the amazing discretion they have.

Michael

Thank you for your article. Yes, I'm sure there are lots of "liars" out there.

Balance? As a victim of stranger bashing and rape by two men, I have difficulty with the notion of balance. One got 200 hours - the other 4 and a 1/2 years (after the DPP appealed the original three years). The "Justice" admitted that he had used a law which was 20 years out of date. My life was ruined. They admitted that they went out that night to rape a woman! They are now free - and I am still in my emotional prison.

Well done Michael.

And well said Realist above.

But how many people feel this way? I fear that we are but the few. As I wrote on a previous thread, justice seems to have given way to revenge. People seem to just want someone locked up. DPPs seem to want to get conviction stats up, police seem to want to get crimes solved whatever the cost. There seems to be little justice at all these days.

And there's far too much name suppression. The accused has the right to know and face the accuser. The public has a right to know what's going on. Penalties for false accusations and perjury must be applied more liberally. Those falsely accused and acquitted should have recourse to sue for slander, even against the DPP itself.

There certainly does need to be a balancing up. I just hope this message reaches more people.

And maybe where an accused person perjures themselves in the witness box, and is acquitted, they should be able to be charged with perjury?

At the moment, due to a High Court decision that basically says that an accused person cannot be found guilty of perjury if they are acquitted, they can lie their heads off in the witness box without fear of penalty. And if they are found guilty, their lying is not held aganst them anyway.

In effect the High Court has given the accused the right to give unsworn evidence, without the jury being warned that the accused will not face perjury charges.

At the moment there are many defence lawyers who are willing to use every legal trick and device to defend their client on the basis of "providing the best defence." Defence lawyers should also remember their obligation to the community. Many in the community would be horrified if they actually watched how some defence barristers act in court.

I have seen many defence counsel, and Crown prosecutors in action. The best ones, by far, are those on both sides who play fair, who fight cases hard, but who do not play games with the law. Thankfully, the ones who see their role as being true to the spirit and the letter ofthe law outnumber the others by a huge margin.

I remember one defence barrister who would try to distract the jury from hearing important prosecution evidence by various means. I have also seen some excellent defence barristers fight very hard with very little, without resorting to trickery and skullduggery.

However the prosecution are constrained far more by evidence law and the application of common law than the defence, who can almost get away with anything.

In any case the prosecution basically has one chance. If at trial an accused person is found not guilty by a jury, then the crown case is done. Even if the accused gets on national TV and admits to the crime in graphic detail, the crown cannot do a thing. That person cannot be re-tried. The crown cannot appeal a verdict.

Even if compelling new evidence comes up - too bad.

However if the accused is found guilty, then he or she can appeal, to the Court of Criminal Appeal and if necessary to the High Court.

If a person is charged with murder, but found guilty of manslaughter, and he appeals and gets a new trial, the highest charge that he will face is manslaughter, the murder charge cannot be pursued, no matter how strong the evidence or whatever new evidence comes to light.

I have seen trials where two different groups of accused were being tried separately for the same group of offenses. One jury heard very different and contradictory defence evidence to the other jury, but the second jury could not be told of the contradictory evidence given at the earlier trial. If the crown had tried that trick there is no way that the trials would have gone to conclusion.

I am not a lawyer, I not been trained in law, I don't have an axe to grind for one side or the other, I also haven't been charged with anything. But I have had the opportunity to view, as a neutral observer, more trials than most people. I believe that there is already balance in justice.