Criminal trial delays in Australia : trial listing outcomes
This research examines the reasons for which criminal trials in Australia fail to proceed on the day of listing. The rationale of such an inquiry is that matters that fail to proceed as scheduled contribute to backlog and delay, both of which consume significant criminal justice resources. Moreover, delay in the criminal trial system may result in adverse effects, not the least of which is the anguish endured by the victims of crime and their families, and the community demanding protection from criminal offenders. This research used quantitative data from courts across a number of Australian states and territories to demonstrate that more than half of all listed criminal trials fail to commence on the listed day. After an analysis of data about trials and extensive interviews with court administrators, it is found that those trials that do not proceed can be placed into two categories: those trials that are finalised on or near the trial date either by way of late guilty plea or late withdrawal by the prosecution, and those trials that are adjourned and re-listed. While some delays will be inevitable, the report builds on recommendations made by a working group of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General to suggest ways of reducing the backlog of criminal trials across Australia.
Plea Negotiations in Context
Plea negotiations remain a surprisingly under-researched activity, with most literature originating from America, England and Canada in the late 1970s to the early 2000s. In Australia, plea negotiations are under-examined, leaving a significant gap in understandings of how plea negotiations operate (in terms of frequency and offence type) and how they may affect justice outcomes. This is concerning in light of recent research which suggests that already marginalised groups, including Indigenous Australians, women and those from low socioeconomic backgrounds, are more vulnerable to being pressured in pre-trial decision-making. This chapter overviews the book’s case file data exploring the characteristics of cases that resolve by plea negotiation. An overview of the criminal justice process and policies related to plea negotiations in Victoria is also presented.
Videotaped versus in-court witness testimony: Does protecting the child witness jeopardize due process?
Videotaping depositions may protect a child witness from the stress of testifying in court but also may influence jurors’ perceptions of the child and the defendant, and jurors’ verdicts in systematic ways. The present study examines several psychological hypotheses that emerge from the controversy over the use of videotaped depositions of child witnesses in child sexual abuse trials. We predicted that student jurors viewing a videotaped deposition would be more proprosecution and less prodefense than those who did not receive testimony in such a form. Thus, it was predicted that jurors viewing a videotaped deposition would perceive the prosecution witnesses and their testimonies more favorably, the defense witnesses and their testimonies less favorably, and give more guilty verdicts than jurors who viewed identical testimony during the course of a trial. We also predicted that females would be more proprosecution and less prodefense than males and that this gender difference would be accentuated by the medium of presentation. The medium of presentation had only a few effects on jurors’ responses. However, when differences emerged, they generally provided support for the predicted main effects. The implications of these findings for the use of videotaped depositions of child sexual abuse victims are discussed.