The role of reform is paramount in ensuring justice is achieved in the criminal justice system, linked to changing community values and ethical standards.
This intro feels a bit like a random syllabus dot point splurge, the link between reform and community values needs to be explained a bit more! With increasing emphasis placed upon protecting the safety and rights of the community, recent reforms have been made in relation to move on orders, the collection of DNA evidence and the employment of charge negotiation, all increasing the power of both police and the judiciary.
This intro is very short, you'll want it to be longer to properly pick apart the question and establish a proper judgement of effectiveness.
Driven by ideological intentions, recent reforms to the
Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act (2002) (LEPRA) have expanded police powers in the name of “public safety”.
Try and start your paragraph with an obvious judgement, this is an ASSESS question after all. By attempting to uphold community interests, the commonwealth, under the
LEPRA Amendment (Move On Directions) 2011, have imposed serious constraints upon the individuals use public spaces, unlawfully compromising one’s freedom to roam.
Saying this is 'unlawful,' isn't quite correct, because it is lawful. I like the idea but the expression isn't quite right. With no offer for judicial review, essential safeguards have been removed, with the most vulnerable members of society being moved at a largely disproportionate rate in comparison to other members, as highlighted in
‘New Drunk, Disorderly Police Powers Penalise the Most Vulnerable’ (SMH: 23/9/14).
Nice use of media - Make sure to explicitly make your judgements though. "... thus showing the ineffectiveness of the reforms," or similar. Moreover, whilst introduced as a deterrent mechanism, the individual’s democratic right to protest peacefully is now dependent upon police discretion, with infringements upon the individual's rights going unchallenged, bringing otherwise law-abiding individuals into negative contact with the criminal justice system, evident during the
Occupy Protests 2011.
Was there a specific court case you could reference here? Following the
Knitting Nannas Against Gas Protest 2016, the NSW government further reformed move on powers under the
Crimes (Serious and Organised Crime) Legislation Amendment Bill 2016, pre-emptively criminalising unwanted political protests. Influenced by the Commonwealth's radical anti-terrorism legislation, it is evident move on orders are not in balance with current moral and ethical standards, impeding upon an individual's rights to freedom of movement and expression. Despite introduced to maintain community safety, these newly granted powers don’t adequately achieve justice, requiring further reform.
I think you've got a nice body of evidence here, but you aren't quite using this as effectively as you could be. Be sure to make specific judgements throughout, this is important to address the verb of 'assess.'Ensuring proactivity to the rapidly evolving nature of forensic technology, significant reforms to statute law have occurred.
Have they been effective or ineffective? Make this obvious from the get go. The
Crimes Amendment (Forensic Procedures) Act 2001 (CA) outlines the collection of forensic evidence as ‘
in situ’, free from contamination.
You don't need to delve in to what the reforms DO, you want to focus on the evaluation of those law changes. By actively acknowledging DNA’s influence in maintaining community interests and achieving justice for victims, the government have catalysed an over reliance upon its evidential accuracy.
I think I know what you mean here, but the expression could be a little better, a little more clarity would be beneficial! Naive of its impact upon the accused rights, this weight has caused serious miscarriages of justice, shown in the paramount case
R v Jama (2008), provoking realisation for much-needed reform. With absence of any other evidence despite DNA, the prosecution benefited from what has been dubbed as the ‘CSI effect’, with misinformed jurors placing immense amounts of weight upon forensic evidence. Acting upon this unethical use of DNA, the nation's Attorney-general’s office implemented measures ensuring the ‘CSI effect’ no longer compromises the integrity and fairness of future criminal proceeding, both raising minimum DNA examination standards and addressing the potential for expert forensic evidence to be misunderstood.
What were these measures? Would you call them effective? This is the bit of the paragraph (the reform) where you need lots of detail. Furthermore, outlined in the
CA (Forensic Procedures) 2000, police have been granted powers to build a DNA database, assisting in the effective prosecution of future and cold cases, highlighted in
R v Castle (2009). However,
David Shoebridge (Greens MP) claimed these powers are unproductive in achieving justice and violate the individual's common law right to privacy and freedom from governmental interference, calling for further reforms to the nature of forensics evidence.
As above, I feel this paragraph isn't using the evidence it contains to support the argument! A little too much detail where it doesn't need to be (what the reforms do, what happened in cases), and not enough detail in evaluating/assessing the reforms, the bits that count.
Introduced to reform costly and lengthy court proceedings, charge negotiation is defined under the
CA (Sentencing Procedure) 1999 as an agreement between the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and the offender with respect to a guilty plea.
You don't need to define key terms, your marker knows them already! The case of
R v Thomson (2000) further reformed the law for the purpose of preserving resources, setting precedent indicating that the utilitarian value of a guilty plea must be dependent upon the timing of the plea.
Was this an effective reform? I know you might be implying this, but it must be explicit! By increasing resource efficiency, charge negotiation has reduced the burden placed on taxpayers and the judiciary, as well as benefited offenders, guatanteening a reduced maximum penalty. However, the DPP often utilize charge negotiation as a bargaining tool, diminishing the victim's right to justice, as seen in the case of
R v PLT (2003), prompting large amounts of public outcry following the death of police officer Glenn McEnallay.
I like that you are blending multiple LCM's into a single 'example' - That's tough to do and you do it frequently and naturally. This is great - Still looking for more obvious evaluation though! Written in response to this dismissal of moral and ethical standards, the
Samuels Report 2002 into Charge Negotiation recommended that the DPP's guidelines ensure ''adequate consultation with victims'', placing significant amounts of pressure on the government, who in turn reviewed the protection of victim's rights under the law.
Nice, lesser known piece of evidence to use! You've done your research 
However, the judiciary perceived resource efficiency of higher importance than the attainment of justice, with media coverage stating recommendations laid out in the report were being ignored for expediency purposes
[‘Victims Ignored in Plea Deals’ (SMH 2009)]. Whilst unable to ensure procedural fairness, the media mobilised government action against such abuses, influencing the
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Amendment Act 2010, where reforms were made to charge negotiation, moving away from the believed process of negotiation and further towards reaching a ‘charge agreement’, ensuring consultation between victims and the DPP.
Be careful you don't slip into a recount of this happened then this happened - Try and succinctly evaluate the reform without wasting time explaining the full story behind the reform itself. However, non-transparent nature, the prosecution's discretionary powers play a large role in charge negotiation, raising doubts over the DPP’s motivations within society and the subsequent legitimacy of the agreements made.
Slight expression issue there? Whilst advantageous in increasing resource efficiency, charge negotiation has large impacts upon those affected by crime, specifically victims, unsuccessful in achieving justice for all parties involved.
Whilst the unfulfillment of justice is a central catalyst for law reform, evidence suggests that recent amendments to move on orders, forensic evidence and charge negotiation have all undermined the rights of individuals.
Adjust your word choice to get rid of 'unfulfillment' there. By granting unnecessary discretionary powers to law enforcement bodies, the role of reform in the Australian criminal justice system has been ineffective in achieving justice, and in turn requires further reform specifically towards the security of common law rights.
Nice finish with a clear judgement, good work there.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Topic: Free Legal Essay Marking! (Read 145413 times)