Case+Law+and+Precedent

=The Court Hierarchies and Court Processes=

The State Court Hierarchy
FULL BENCH OF THE HIGH COURT


 * Full bench of 7 judges.
 * Usually hears Constitutional matters -> interpretation of Constitution.
 * Matters of significant public importance.
 * Where the Court may wish to depart from its previous decisions.

HEARS APPEALS FROM:
 * Single judge of High Court
 * Court of Appeal (Special leave required).

FULL COURT OF THE HIGH COURT
 * 2+ judges.
 * Exclusive jurisdiction over Commonwealth Constitutional issues.
 * Technically has original jurisdiction is all criminal offences against Federal laws -> These usually remit to Federal/State Courts.

HEARS APPEALS FROM: HIGH COURT (SINGLE JUDGE)
 * Court of Appeal (Special leave req.).
 * Federal Court
 * Family Court
 * Any other matter that comes before the High Court not listed above is generally heard by a single judge.

SUPREME COURT - COURT OF APPEAL
 * Two divisions: COURT OF APPEAL and TRIAL DIVISION
 * Appellate division of the Supreme Court.
 * Hears both state and federal matters.
 * HEARS APPEALS FROM:
 * CIVIL:
 * Appeals from single County Court judge.
 * Appeals from trial division of SC.
 * Appeals on question of law from VCAT.
 * CRIMINAL:
 * Single judges with juries from County Court and Supreme Court Trial division.
 * appeals on questions of law from summary criminal trials in the Magistrates Courts.

SUPREME COURT – TRIAL DIVISION
 * HEARS FIRST INSTANCE:
 * Unlimited civil jurisdiction -> i.e. claims for whatever amount.
 * Serious indictable criminal offences such as murder
 * Inherent jurisdiction from C/L system -> jurisdiction over all offences in VIC.
 * Hears both state and federal matters.
 * HEARS APPEALS FROM:
 * CIVIL:
 * Questions of law from Magistrates’ Court
 * Questions of law from VCAT
 * NOTE: most appeals on question of law go to the Court of Appeal. The above two are the only exceptions which go to the Supreme Court.
 * CRIMINAL:
 * No criminal appellate jurisdiction -> they go to Court of Appeal.

COUNTY COURT
 * HEARS FIRST INSTANCE:
 * CIVIL:
 * Claims for unlimited amount
 * CRIMINAL:
 * All indictable offences bar the most serious (murder, treason etc).
 * HEARS APPEALS FROM:
 * CIVIL:
 * Children’s Court.
 * CRIMINAL:
 * Magistrates’ Court.
 * Children’s Court.

MAGISTRATES’ COURT
 * HEARS FIRST INSTANCE:
 * CIVIL:
 * Personal injury and other claims less than $100000.
 * Unlimited amount if written consent given by both parties.
 * CRIMINAL:
 * Summary offences (minor offences like traffic offences).
 * Indictable offences tried summarily.
 * Committal hearings to determine if there is enough evidence to support a hearing in a higher court.

CHILDREN’S COURT CORONER’S COURT
 * FAMILY DIVISION:
 * Applications in relation to protection and care of a minor under 17.
 * Applications for intervention orders where either party is under 18.
 * CRIMINAL DIVISION:
 * Child offenders between 10 and 16 years but not yet 18 at time of hearing.
 * Does not include offences such as murder, manslaughter, attempted murder, arson and culpable driving which causes death.
 * Investigates sudden unexpected unnatural and/or violent deaths.
 * Does not decide questions of guilt.
 * Makes reports to DPP who can initiate criminal proceedings.

**Commonwealth Court Heirarchy**

 * HIGH COURT:
 * HEARS FIRST INSTANCE:
 * Jurisdiction supplied in s75 and s76 of Constitution.
 * Matters where Cth. is a party.
 * Disputes b/w states.
 * APPEALS:
 * Any federal court, Supreme court or court exercising federal jurisdiction.


 * FEDERAL COURT:
 * Federal Court Act 1976 -> No inherent jurisdiction in C/L -> All in statute.
 * HEARS FIRST INSTANCE:
 * Most civil disputes.
 * Summary criminal offences falling under federal law.
 * Matters in Cth. legislation -> native title, industrial law, trade practices etc.
 * APPEALS:
 * Federal Magistrates’ Court.
 * Does not hear appeals under family law -> Family Court.
 * Some federal matters from State courts are appealed to Federal Court.


 * FAMILY COURT


 * FEDERAL MAGISTRATES’ COURT
 * [|Federal Magistrates Act 1999]
 * Established to provide an inferior court in federal hierarchy to deal with federal matters in a sipler and speedier manner.

PRIVY COUNCIL?
 * Appeals to the PC were abolished in a 3-step process:
 * 1) Privy Council (Limitation of Appeals) Act 1968 (Cth) -> Abolished appeals in matters of federal and territorial jurisdiction.
 * 2) Privy Council (Appeals from High Court) Act 1975 (Cth)-> Abolished appeals from High Court in matters of State jurisdiction -> this meant that between 1975 and 1986, state matters could be appealed to the High Court or the Privy Council.
 * 3) Australia Act 1986 (Cth) -> Can no longer appeal to PC on matters of State jurisdiction -> this abolished the last remaining avenue to appeal to the PC

English Court Hierarchy
 HOW ARE DECISIONS REPORTED? CIVIL: O’Toole v David (1991) 175 CLR 232 CRIMINAL: DPP v Kelmann [2010] QB 121 APPEALS: A NOTE ON TERMINOLOGY:
 * O’Toole is the plaintiff
 * David is the defendant
 * Parentheses indicate the date when the decision was held.
 * 175 is the volume number
 * CLR is the report series (in this case CLR = Cth. Law Reports)
 * 232 is the page number
 * DPP = department of public prosecutions. It replaces R (Regina -> the Queen). It is the prosecutor.
 * Kelmann = defendant/accused.
 * Square brackets indicate a reference date. This is what you use to locate the report.
 * QB = Queen’s Bench
 * The party initiating the appeal is the appellant. Their name appears first. The other party is the respondent. If Kelmann appealed -> Kelmann v The Crown -> Kelmann is appellant, DPP or the Crown is the reposndent.
 * Decision: The resolution of the dispute -> what was held?
 * Order: What the court binds the parties to do.
 * Judgment: The reasons behind the decision.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FACT AND LAW:
 * In appellate decisions, the facts are not in dispute -> law is in dispute.
 * The difference between fact and law has not yet been defined.
 * Interpret facts then see how the law applies to these facts.

WHAT IS LEGAL REASONING AND HOW DOES IT APPLY TO CASES?


 * INDUCTIVE REASONING:
 * Identify legal rule in previous case.
 * E.g., Solomon awarded custody to the natural mother therefore the natural mother has the better right to custody


 * DEDUCTIVE REASONING:
 * Apply general statements of law to particular facts.
 * E.g., The natural mother has the better right to custody. Mrs A is the natural mother therefore, Mrs A should be granted custody.


 * REASONING BY ANALOGY:
 * Are the facts similar to the decided case for the same rule to apply?
 * When we argue the facts of the present case are materially different from the facts of the decided case we are distinguishing the facts of the case -> arguing that the precedent of the decided case should not apply to this case.

WHAT IS THE DOCTRINE OF PRECEDENT?

“Stare decisis et non quieta movere” Stand by the thing decided and do not disturb the calm
 * Lower courts bound by decisions of higher courts in the same hierarchy.
 * Superior courts not bound by decisions of lower courts but these decisions are persuasive.
 * Decisions held in other jurisdictions (e.g., a different State hierarchy) are persuasive.
 * However, an inferior court will not diverge from the decision of a superior court in a different hierarchy unless it is ‘manifestly wrong’. (Body Corporate Strata Plan v Albion Insurance)
 * Superior courts are either bound by their own previous decisions or they are extremely reluctant to depart from them.
 * Judges do not have to follow the decisions of other judges at the same level in the same judicial hierarchy.

JUSTIFICATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF PRECEDENT:
 * 1) Certainty -> can predict a likely outcome -> reduces disputes.
 * 2) Equality and Fairness -> treat like cases alike.
 * 3) Efficiency -> Subsequent cases do not have to reconsider the issue.
 * 4) Appearance of Justice -> impartial rules of law free from bias and personal views of judges.
 * 5) Limits judicial law-making -> Separation of powers -> Judges apply law rather than make it -> This is known as the declaratory theory of law.