Non-Adversarial Justice: The Changing Role of Courtroom Participants in an Indigenous Sentencing Court pages-115-125
This paper forms part of a wider sociolinguistic study of cultural and language disadvantage for Indigenous offenders in the criminal justice system. It examines the changing role of courtroom participants in an Indigenous sentencing court such as the Koori Court of Victoria, and how this may lead to a better quality of justice for this disadvantaged cultural group. The problem under review is the high percentage of Indigenous offenders who continue to come in contact with the law. The key aim of the research is to determine if issues of miscommunication identified by academics over the past three decades continue to be reflected in the court process, or whether an awareness of cultural and language difference by participants at the Koori Court hearing leads to a more restorative and therapeutic outcome for Indigenous offenders. Taking an interdisciplinary approach, the study investigates the role of participants and the communicative process in a conventional court and compares this with the non-adversarial Koori Court. There are now seven adult and two children’s Koori Courts in Victoria, established under the jurisdiction of the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, and one County Koori Court, Australia’s only Indigenous court in a higher jurisdiction for more serious cases. This paper will illustrate how new forms of court practice lead to improved interaction between courtroom professionals and other key participants such as the offender and Indigenous Elders, in order to best achieve a positive outcome.
How Do Non-professional Participants of a Trial Cope with the Communication Process at the Trial? The Results of Empirical Research Conducted in Polish Courts
The aim of this article is to present some of the results of empirical research on the communication process at a trial conducted in Polish courts. These results will concern the participation of non-professional participants of a trial and the ways in which they deal with the communication process in the courtroom. The article presents the results of the analysis of the research material conducted in accordance with the detailed research questions and analytical categories. The analysis has especially shown that: (1) the non-professional participants used some legal terminology, but the statements without legal terminology were also communicatively effective; (2) the level of activity of non-professional participants related to participation at the trial varied depending on what the activity concerned; the activity in asking questions to the presiding judges regarding legal issues and the course of the court proceedings appeared to be significant; (3) the non-professional participants’ had a real and significant problem with asking questions during the examination (the proper realization of this element of the trial); (4) the statements of the non-professional participants of a trial were very protective; they used many different “linguistic means of protection” (e.g., acts of supposition or acts of doubt) which are connected with the obligation to tell the truth, the prohibition of concealing the truth and giving false testimony during examination; (5) the non-professional participants of a trial reach for adequate argumentative acts, which are suitable for influencing the perception of specific events or persons, and they strengthen their statements by using appropriate linguistic means of persuasion.
The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice ten years on: Successes and future challenges under the Stockholm Programme. CEPS Paperbacks. June 2010
This book celebrates the tenth anniversary of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) by bringing together the views of key practitioners and policy-makers who have played an outstanding role in thinking about and shaping EU policies on freedom, security and justice. 
 
Ten years ago, the member states transferred competences to the EU for law and policy-making in the fields of immigration, asylum and border controls, and began the transfer process for criminal justice and policing. This decade of European cooperation on AFSJ policies has experienced very dynamic convergence, the enactment of a large body of European law and the setting-up of numerous EU agencies working in these domains. Such dynamism in policy-making has not been without challenges and vulnerabilities, however. As this collective volume shows, the main dilemmas that lie ahead relate to an effective (while more plural) institutional framework under the Treaty of Lisbon, stronger judicial scrutiny through a greater role for national courts and the Court of Justice in Luxembourg, better mechanisms for evaluating and monitoring the implementation of EU AFSJ law and a more solid fundamental rights strategy. The contributions in this volume address the progress achieved so far in these policy areas, identify the challenges for future European cooperation in the AFSJ and put forward possible paths for making more progress in the next generation of the EU’s AFSJ.