DV Report

The Criminal Justice System, as I witnessed it in Liverpool court raised a number of questions to my ideals to justice and the criminal process. I was expecting dramatics or outbursts that we see too often in the news. It was only met with long waiting, sobering stories and polite conversations with police and other court officers. Not exactly the theatrics I was expecting.
The first ‘set’ of matters were mainly asking for adjournments, in most circumstances one of the parties was missing something or needed to complete something before the matter could continue. The second ‘set’ came after a quick 15 minute break, which we were shuffled into another courtroom which had a seemingly more obtuse judge than the previous. Whilst the judge in the first courtroom was patient and generally willing to listen to some of the defendants, the second was sharper and quicker to criticise the actions of the defendants.
The defendants themselves were served in a manner like a school cafeteria, one after the next waiting for a lunch. As Doreen McBarnett wrote in Conviction “they can observe their predecessors’ fate and shuffle along to each newly vacated space till their turn comes for the dock.”
For the applicants of the AVO, it was different. During the time I was in court, I noticed both police applicants and private applicants. The vast majority of the applicants for the AVO’s were from police, only one applicant was a private applicant. It was slightly different for both parties. Police had obviously vast court experience and were slightly less formal than I thought they should have or would have been. Private applicants were more formal and emotional in their pleading to ask for an AVO, I did not fortunately hear the particulars of the private applicant but she was visibly upset as she was in the process of application with her solicitor standing next to her.
Between the experience in the courtroom and talking afterwards to the police prosecutor, it seemed that AVOs have had mixed results. The police support officer did mention that even though the AVO creates a heavier sentence for someone breaching their AVO, if someone is determined enough to commit an offence, they will commit an offence regardless of an AVO present.
One might argue that due to the inefficiencies in the summary offences processes, as a result creates inefficiencies in the criminal justice system itself. This could be argued that it creates ineffective solutions to domestic violence. Because judges are more concerned about hearing all the matters instead of giving due process, but it may be argued that summary offences never have such luxuries as indictable offences that are seen in district and supreme courts. David Brown argues in Materials and Commentary on the Criminal Process in New South Wales that “the current state of criminal trial is unwieldy, irrational, prone to ‘perverse’ verdicts on the part on the jury, and that the balance of the criminal trial is tilted too far in favour of the defendant.”  I too have seen aspects of this when I went to Liverpool court. Although to abrogate these notions to try to counteract domestic violence for example, would be to abrogate deep rooted or intrinsic parts of the common law. This isn’t unprecedented, for example double jeopardy has recently been eroded whilst historically was a very deep rooted common law right. So it could concluded that changing the law whilst difficult is not impossible.
The processes are carefully designed to protect the interests of the public, the defendant’s right to liberty and the victim’s safety.
Seeing the experience says to me that the process needs more resources to deal with the supposed explosion of AVOs being filed. More resources so that they can give due process and a speedy trial as well. As a law student it changes my perspective that courts are fast and effective from the outside looking in. From more of the inside looking out, it changes your perspective as you realise that the courts are hard pressed to be fast and efficient at the same time, and usually the latter is sacrificed for the former.
While observing you can’t help but feel sorry for the people whose liberty was taken away, whilst we didn’t see anyone whose liberty was taken away as part of a custodial sentence, there were some who came very close, and reminds us all how quickly your liberty can be taken away.