Court Report One

Court Report One

Date: September 2007
Court: Magistrate Court, Court 8
Magistrate: Mr L
Accused: Accused A
Accused B
Accused C
Prosecution: BLANK
Defence: BLANK


Charges: Assault occasioning actual bodily harm

The accused were served with the charges of assault occasioning actual bodily harm on the 8 July 8007at 10.20pm (section 24 of the Crimes ACT 1900)


The hearing began at 10.10am with the Prosecution and Defence counsels introducing themselves to the Magistrate. Right after the introduction, the Prosecutor, Mr. D apologised profusely to the court for the missing informant: a constable who served the charges. The Magistrate inquired immediately as to where the informant might be and asked the prosecutor to locate her in the next 15 mins. Court was adjourned at 10.15am as the Mr. D hastily searched for the informant who was supposed to be present.

The hearing resumed at 10:40am with the informant and accused A and B present. The Defence counsel then apologised for the missing accused C stating that under section 89A of the Magistrates Court ACT 1930, the court is able to excuse a person from attendance of the court. The Magistrate argued that under in section 89A of the Magistrates Court ACT 1930 subsection (3) the court has to be notified. The Defence counsel for accused C reasoned that the accused was severely beaten by her husband last night and went to the hospital. The Magistrate stressed that the Accused had to be present anyway unless she obtained a medical leave from the hospital which did not reach the court prior to the hearing. The Defence counsel apologised but supported the prevalence of section 89A of the Magistrates Court Act 1930 and informed the court that the counsel’s doctor will provide them with a medical certificate to confirm her medical leave. The matter was adjourned till next week for Accused C by the magistrate.

The Magistrate then motioned for the Prosecution to call on the informant. The informant was called forth to the witness stand. The Prosecution cross-examined the informant to clarify details of the event on which the charges of assault occasioning actual bodily harm were served on the 8 July 2007 at 10.20pm for accused A and B. Mr. D proceeded to explain upon the documents, statements, evidence and photographs presented to the court. The Magistrate then went through the items and for future reference, the items were labelled with alphabets A to H. The Magistrate asked if the Defence counsel had any questions for the informant. The informant was excused after the Defence counsel confirmed that they did not have any questions.

The Magistrate addressed the Accused A and Accused B formally charging them with assault occasioning actual bodily harm under section 24 of the Crimes ACT 1900. While the accused were being charged, the Defence counsel stood along side them. The Magistrate then asked the accused if they had anything to say informing them that they could choose to remain silent but whatever they said can and will be used against them in other proceedings. The accused were advised by their counsel to decline the opportunity to speak given to them.

The Magistrate directed the informant and prosecutor to serve a notice requiring the Accused C for appearance at court on the 12 Sept 2007 at 10am Wednesday. He then directed Accused A and Accused B to sign a bail immediately which would be continued until the 20 Sept 2007 when they are to appear before the Supreme Court. The matter was adjourned at 11.10am.

At the hearing, the individuals present were highly and technically competent in their roles which led to the efficient undertaking of the procedures in court. This facilitated the committal hearing and allowed other cases to receive the courts’ attention on the same day. This of course causes other attendees such as the accused who are not educated in law or court settings to feel rather intimidated and confused. However, it is difficult to change the way the court operates or slow the pace down for other individuals who are inexperienced in law to understand the happenings due to time restraints faced by the court. It is most comforting to see the Defence counsel constantly instructing the accused in customs of the court despite all the happenings in the court room which can appear frightening and stressful.

Throughout the hearing, the Magistrate was observed to be pursuing a fair hearing. This was concluded from the case involving Accused C who was not present which led the Magistrate to adjourn the matter to a later date with a notice served to the accused instead of pursuing the charges immediately. In Mr. L’s notion, ‘a person cannot be charged without being present for the charge of an offence’. Also with the instructions for the Prosecution to search for the informant immediately indicated that the Magistrate in his discretion tried to prevent a delay in court (Findlay, Odgers & Yeo, 2005, pg 119).

While observing the committal hearing, it appears that a pre-trial session took place to gather the participants i.e. the Prosecution, the Defence counsels, the informants and the accused for the presentation of the Prosecution to facet the charges pertaining the case. This hearing served the purpose of clarifying the issues of the case presented (Findlay, Odgers & Yeo, 2005 pg133). The activities that took place in the hearing seemed to be only between the Prosecution, Informant and the Magistrate. In the span of half an hour in that court room, it was mostly spent going through the housekeeping of documents and evidence.



Reference

Fidlay, M., Odgers, S. & Yeo, S. (2005), Australian Criminal Justice (3rd edition). Melbourne: Oxford University Press.