Court Report

Court Report

Index

SYNOPSIS 1

Background 1

Reason for Appeal 1

The Hearing's Proceedings 2

Adjudicator's Response 3

OUTCOMES 3

Formality of the Court 3

Type of Legal Action Heard 3

Party Representation 4

Socio-Economic Status 5

The Role of the Individuals at Court 5

Adjudicator 5

Appellant 6

Respondent 6

Appellant's Representation 6

Arguments Tendered 7

Key Issues 7

The Burden of Proof 8

Precedent 8

Remedies Sought 8

The Judgement 9

Synopsis

This report seeks to critically analyse various outcomes from observations on how the Australian legal system works in real life through the hearing before the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court Case Hinton v. Regina (R). Following a description of the case and proceedings of the day, the report will explain and discuss the processes which have been undergone during the day's proceedings.

Background

The case of Hinton v. R. regards an appeal hearing against the 6 month imprisonment sentence given to Hinton for the act of committing three driving offences over a three month period. The three acts which Mr Hinton was charged with committing included; two cases of driving while disqualified and one charge of driving furiously. The charge of driving furiously was brought forward due to Mr Hinton, at the time, driving down the wrong side of the road at 150km/h with a suspended licence. Mr Hinton was uninsured to drive the car in addition to having both his partner and her children in the vehicle at the time. Unfortunately there was no reference to the date at which Mr Hinton was found guilty to these charges and sentenced to the aforementioned 6 month prison sentence.

Reason for Appeal

Mr Hinton's (Appellant) appeal hearing was on the 14th of March in the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court against The Queen (R.) (Respondent). The hearing was being presided over by Justice Gray. The appeal was made by the Appellant who believed he could present a special and exceptional circumstance for a suspension of his sentence for a time.

The Appellant claimed that his sentence should be suspended for the last three months of his partner's pregnancy, as hers was considered a high risk pregnancy. The Appellant considered his presence would be a benefit for the pregnancy. This was considered by the Appellant as a mitigating circumstance in his case and fell into the category of Ð''special and exceptional circumstances.'

The Hearing's Proceedings

During the day's proceedings, the Appellant presented, through a barrister, the aforementioned argument regarding the Appellant's beneficial presence during the final stages of his partner's pregnancy. He claimed that his presence would bring both physical and emotional support to Mr Hinton's partner. There was no physical evidence tendered from a medical practitioner to support such a claim. The Respondent retorted by bringing to the court's attention the point that the Appellant had "acted so recklessly" by endangering both his partner and her children. He did this during the aforementioned event at which he had been driving down the wrong side of Barton Hwy at 150km/h, unlicensed and uninsured.

The Respondent also argued that the pregnancy was not brought up in the original court case as it is not a credible circumstance in which to argue a special and exceptional circumstance, but instead a loophole though which the Appellant was using in an attempt to delay the serving of his full sentence.

The Respondent also brought to the court's attention the lack of hard evidence tendered by the Appellant to back up the claim that the Mr Hinton would be of a physical and emotional support.

Adjudicator's Response

Justice Gray informed the Appellant that they had "provided no where near enough evidence from a medical practitioner as to what positive benefits Mr Hinton could provide should he remain with his partner at this particular time." Essentially, Justice Gray quashed the main argument for the Appellant. Justice Gray ruled in favour of the Respondent in this case, and the appeal request was rejected on the terms of insufficient evidence for special and exceptional circumstances.

Outcomes

Formality of the Court

As the hearing was taking place in the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court, there was and extremely high level of formality. The legal representation for both parties was attired in full gown and wig. The court also upheld the tradition of bowing to the adjudicator, Justice Gray, on both entry and exit. This is extremely formal in comparison to the Local Court in which just standing is held as an appropriate action for the entry and exit of the adjudicator. A higher level of respect is shown as the Supreme Court is held in higher stead in the hierarchy of the court system.

Type of Legal Action Heard

The legal action brought before the court was of a appellate nature, beginning in the Australian Capital Territory Magistrates Court before an appeal hearing was heard at the Australian Capital Territory Supreme Court, attempting to prove special and exceptional circumstances. An appeal is launched when one party is not satisfied with a decision handed down by the court and believes itself to be unfairly done by. An appeal can be made to the next court up in the court system hierarchy by either party in any type of court case, whether the original case has produced a result or not. For example, if a criminal prosecutor wins a case but thinks the sentence is too light, they can appeal to the next court up in the hierarchy to rehear the case, and thus gain another