Some quick notes I wrote up pre-sac 2a. (really informal and colloquial)

[drmockingbird]

Hey ATARNotes,

Thought I might share some notes I've written pre-SAC just to recap all the content and stuff. These aren't study notes, just my thoughts on the entire SAC.


Concerning the LEGAL Sac, there are four pieces of information that I need to know.

First and foremost, the Crimes Procedure Act 2009 is a current change in the Legal System in regards to effective access - the Act, I believe, fixed up the fact that people were being so goddamn annoyed with the R.E.P and it kinda loosened off on them….stupid.stupid.stupid. The R.E.P are amazing.

Secondly, the three pre-trial procedures that the SAC will be asking you for are bail, remand, and committal mentions. Bail helps the F aspect of FAT, remand is good for nothing (but seriously, it doesn’t really contribute to FAT as much as it keeps society safe, you can mention that but then you’ve got to shut down remand. Big time. It’s really stupid.) Committal mentions establish that prima facie case, which allows for timely resolution, and directions hearings are a big plus in this regard - they help clear facts up before a case goes to trial, saving the court time, and money. Furthermore, they determine whether the accused wishes to plead innocent or guilty (obvious, yes, but it does help for fair and unbiased trial as the accused will have adequate time to prepare against the prosecution’s case, and if he/she does plead guilty, then a more lenient sentence will be given, which is nice of the legal system - could probably link it to F.

Thirdly, there’s a whole lot of nonsense about the adversary system’s features, it’s effectiveness as a legal system, and how it provides for FAT. Just remember this formula

For non-FAT questions
1. Party Control (combative spirit, more satisfied with outcome)
 - Disadvantages are that this can fuel competitiveness and reduce the chances of a settlement out of court, and that parties that aren’t financially well off can’t afford good legal representation.

2. Role of the Judge (impartial umpire, supreme dictator of the rules of evidence and procedure)
- Disadvantages are that the full judicial expertise of this dude hasn’t been properly exploited..so those douchebags at the inquisitorial system wanna make this guy more active…which is stupid, seeing as he/she IS a judge, after all.
Which leads us into the reform associated with this element : that the judge should take a more active role in preparing evidence so that the full judicial expertise can be utilized. Hilarious.

3. R.E.P
I bloody love these things. They are an INTRINSIC part of our legal system, and uphold the burden of proof (substantiating any claim made in court with admissible evidence). If it weren’t for these, Russell teapot-esque claims would be flying around our legal system.
Disadvantages are that they can make proceedings exceedingly legalistic, intimidating and polarizing some parties (like those people at the County Court speaking their fancy jargon). This can also increase the length of the trial, but essentially the R.E.P need to stay because they are amazing and that’s that.
There is a reform here - greater use of written evidence, which is pretty logical as it will save the court a lot of time and that witnesses won’t have to be personally present in front of the court if they ever decide to to testify. On the other hand, solicitors are damn expensive and they’ll charge a lot of money for writing up legal evidence. Also, I’d feel sorry for the judge with all these goddamn papers lying around everywhere…..I much prefer oral evidence.

4. Legal Representation. This one is pretty self explanatory so I’m not going into it in much detail.

For FAT questions, replace the Party Control with something like how the adversary system provides for pre-trial procedures which help FAT, and then maybe bolster up the fact that although legal representation is expensive, it is pretty worth it and people should stop complaining and just get legal aid if they can't afford. Ok, don’t say that.

And FINALLY, the inquisitorial system, which is a bunch of nice guys trying to find the “truth” without having any real action in the courts. boring, right?

So in this system
- 1. The judge is like a barrister. He COLLECTS THE GODDAMN EVIDENCE.
- 2. The parties are under direction of the court so none of that feisty combative spirit
- 3. These guys are really nice so R.E.P are pretty loose and hearsay is allowed - and witnesses can be called by the judge to speak in their own way and stuff.
- 4. Since the emphasis is on “finding the truth”, more written statements, and since you only have to mention the inquisitorial system in relation to the adversary system this is substantial enough of a point to grab you a mark or two.

Remember, blitz through the earlier part of the SAC so you have time to PLAN the 10 mark question and you should be fine.