Without “fairness” the criminal justice “system” or “process” would be a shambles. Justice would rarely prevail and the accused persons would stand no chance in their defence of the charges against them. The Judiciary is required to ensure that the trial is “fair”. The fact that a trial was that of a “fair (trial) according to law” is just as important as the actual verdict itself. If the accused, in an Appellate court, is found to have been tried in a court that was deemed to have been “unfair” then he is acquitted of the original charge. However the concept of “fairness” is rather difficult to define. It is a tangle of current social values, ethics, procedures and equality. “All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals” and therefore wealth, social status, race and other social differences should have no influence in the process of justice. The case of Dietrich v R (1992) was a significant one in the area of

An extension to this law is the limitations that are imposed on the defence when cross-examining victims of sexual assault cases. The defence is not allowed to cross-examine the complainant about her sexual history or reputation. The belief that if a victim has slept with many men and is reputed as a very sexually experienced woman, then it is more likely that she actually consented to having sexual intercourse with the accused. This is extremely prejudicial and untrue. The fact that there are loopholes in the legislation that allow defence lawyers to exploit this belief angers me. If there is a legislation that has been specifically implemented to stop this “unfairness” then how can the behavior continue? In contrast to nearly every other court process this legislation is imposed to ensure that the accused does not receive an “unjust” advantage and the victim is not prejudiced against. In order for trials to be “fair” then the judiciary must step in and police this law with more strictness and integrity than is currently happening.

Evidence that is suspect or of dubious reliability is filtered in order to ensure that there is no witnesses that take the stand and lie about the facts of the case. This often occurs when it is the self-interest of the witness to testify untruths. An example of this is when an accomplice of the accused tells the court that the instigator and leader (of the crime) is the defendant of that trial. However if the accomplice is allowed to testify, the judge shall issue a warning to the jury about the “potential unreliability” of this evidence. There are other witnesses that may be deemed suspect or dubious in their reliability and these include; the mentally disabled, young children, prison informers, witnesses of bad character and also witnesses who are testifying as to the events that have taken place many years in the past. These types of witnesses prompt the warning of “potential unreliability” to the jury by the judge.

Some topics in this essay:
Justice System, Justice Gaudron, Legal Representation, Gaudron Court, “fair” trial, justice system, criminal justice, criminal justice system, trial “fair”, legal representation, evidence excluded, “potential unreliability”, deemed “unfair”, Criminal Justice, type evidence excluded, staged “fair”, suspect dubious reliability, criminal trial, equal courts tribunals”, trial staged “fair”,