Melbourne Magistrates Court - Case Study Example

Melbourne Magistrate’s Court Name Institution Name Date Court Experiences I had watched movies and films, which had scenes that presented different court cases. On 21 August 2015 was my first experience in Melbourne Magistrate Court. The idea was intriguing first because I had searched for information about the Civil Listings. Since I was free that morning, I decided to attend and listen to a dispute about two former friends who owned each other business money. Attending the court was an experience because of the silence and the requirement to flow processes and regulations. The Magistrate determined the pace of the case, and everybody within the court respected the Magistrate. The plaintiff and the defendant followed the directives of the Magistrate, and because negotiations did not take place, the session was boring. I propose some adjustments on some of the cases that are brought to Magistrate Court. For example, the plaintiff and defendant have to state whether they want a court hearing or want to meet the magistrate for guidance. The current case was discussed and dispensed behind the courts because the Magistrate called the parties to the chambers. Therefore, the approach to some of the cases should be changed. The Layout of the Hearing Room Some of the physical features are the tables, chairs, and audio devices1. The Magistrate was sitting in front of the room and positioned at the highest level of the room. The Magistrate was facing the public gallery and other persons in the room. In front of the Magistrate and lower sitting position compared to the Magistrate was the Magistrate’s Clerk2. On the left-hand side of the Magistrate was the witness box while on the right hand side was the defendant box. Beside the defendant was the sitting position of the defense level while beside the witness was the position of the prosecution or plaintiff lawyer. In addition, there was the sitting position for the police who was in charge of security during the proceedings. There was also the public gallery in which any individual is allowed to follow the proceedings depending on the directives of the Magistrate3. The Personnel in the Hearing In the courtroom, there was the Magistrate and the two parties who wanted their differences resolved. Two more people were in the public gallery waiting for the next case4. The parties were the plaintiff and the defendant. The role of the magistrate is to oversee the case without bias and impose a penalty or any other directive depending on the nature of the case. Therefore, the role of the magistrate is to ensure the case is analyzed and justice administered impartially and fairly5. The Magistrate’s clerk ensures effective record keeping of the proceedings. The clerk documents any evidence presented to the court, penalties, decisions and magistrate’s remarks. The defendant is the person accused and it is the individual who is alleged to have committed an offense. In some instances, the defendant may be represented by a lawyer. The plaintiff is the individual or entity who brought the case and also sometimes can be represented by a lawyer. The police officer within the room ensures security is maintained and other security related matters are addressed. The Types of Cases Heard by the Civil List Numerous cases can be heard. Some of the cases include civil and money matters, which the Magistrates’ Court hears disputes associated or arises from claims of damages, debts other equitable relief and monetary disputes (Magistrates Court of Victoria, 2015). The Magistrate Court determines disputes of money, which has a value of $100,000; however, based on different circumstances, the Court may hear cases that have unlimited value. Civil jurisdiction cases fall into three broad categories: industrial, work cover, and general. The general civil jurisdiction covers addresses complaints for limited neighborhood matters, for injury, damage to property, damages for breach of contract and claims for debt6. The court also addresses discrimination complaints as indicated in the Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004. The industrial division addresses claim by Fair Work Ombudsman, employers and employees under Occupational Health and Safety Act 2004, and Long Service Leave Act 1992. The Workcover List addresses compensation for injuries at the workplace under either the Accident Compensation Act 1985 or the Workers Compensation Act 1958 (Magistrates Court of Victoria, 2015). Commencing and Defending an Action in the Court All the people involved with the case have to be in court before the Magistrate enters7. The Magistrate’s Clerk introduces the Magistrate whereby individuals within the courtroom have to stand until the Magistrate sits down. The Magistrate’s Clerk presents the file case to the Magistrate, and the Magistrate oversees the case. The plaintiff or prosecutor is requested to present the evidence and other related information. The lawyer representing the defendant may participate in the case when a witness is presenting their views to clarify the issues and also to defend the defendant8. The defense lawyer cross-examines the witness to ensure contrary information is provided aiming at discrediting the witness while supporting the requirements of the defendant. The arguments proceed until the witnesses, and the Prosecutor exhaust evidence and the defense representative can be required to present any witness. After completion, the Prosecution and the defense representative are given the opportunity to provide their closing remarks. The Magistrate may seek for sometime to review the evidence and pass decision. The Facts of the Case The plaintiff was Robinson Timothy and the defendant was Muddyman Paul. The case was heard on 21 August 2015 at 9.30 AM. The case number of the dispute was D10745835. Both the plaintiff and defendant were not represented. The hearing was magistrate administration, and the matter description was stay for execution. The nature of the complaint was monies due9. Robinson had been told to give some monies to Muddyman but Robinson did not have the money and wanted to negotiate and arrive at an understanding. The nature of the case was business-private in nature, and the plaintiff wanted a private agreement with Muddyman on the aspect of monies due. The magistrate, plaintiff, and defendant retreated to the Magistrate Chamber, returned later, and announced a private agreement had been arrived at. The Law Governing the Case Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and as amended by Public Law 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (Sept. 30, 1996) defines the methods and strategies of debt collectors collecting debts10. Legislations and laws, which are either written or personal understandings exists that guides in giving out monies and expecting the monies back11. The amount and understanding between the parties determine whether legal contracts are appropriate. For example, borrowings between friends do not require contracts because of the faith associated with the transactions. Written contracts have defined means and strategies of making payments and have clauses addressing complaints and complications that may arise12. Different jurisdictions have means of addressing monies due, and the most important component is a determination of the existence of the transaction. Furthermore, the basis of the debt and earlier understandings play an important role in arriving at a definite conclusion. Application of the Law to the Case Since both the parties had prior understanding and the association between the parties, the Magistrate decided to allow the parties to solve their problems13. The timeline provided was aimed at ensuring the decisions are arrived at the shortest time possible with concrete strategies for addressing the problem conclusively. The Magistrate employed out of court settlement provided the agreements and understandings are adhered. Therefore, common sense and the aspect of understanding played an integral role in addressing the requirements of the case. The Outcome of the Case The decision of the Magistrate was conditional. The Magistrate directed the plaintiff and the defendant to address their complaints outside the court and respond within one month. The Magistrate told the court the private discussion and understanding will be made public if further complaints emerge between the plaintiff and defendant. The agreement between the plaintiff and defendant was not signed but based on the relationship, which exist between the two parties. Based on the views of the stakeholders involved, the dispute had been addressed, and judicial approaches in future will not be required. Personal Views on the Dispensed Case The approach the Magistrate took was appropriate because the case was addressed within the shortest time possible. The decision was fair because the defendant and plaintiff came to an understanding and decide to address their dispute within the shortest time possible. I would have decided the matter in the same manner rather than making the situation to prolong; for example, hearing the views of the defendant, views of the plaintiff and extensive negotiation between the plaintiff and defendant. The aim of courts is to be impartial and fair in making decisions and allowing the plaintiff and defendant to contribute to decision making allows cohesive decision, which can be implemented easily. Therefore, a Magistrate as a mediator sometimes is important rather than adhering to the legal requirement and other associated tasks associated with a given case. References Bellamy, A. (2014). The responsibility to protect: A defense. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Latimer, P. (2012). Australian business law 2012. Sydney: CCH Australia Limited. Magistrates Court of Victoria. (2015). Civil. Retrieved from http://www.magistratescourt.vic.gov.au/jurisdictions/civil Ubink, J. (2011). Customary Justice: Perspectives on legal empowerment. London: International Development Law Organization. Walker, T. (2013). Reputation matters: A practical legal guide to managing reputation risk. Sydney: CCH Australia Limited. Read More