Court of Appeal – Review of 2013-2014 Here is the link to the Court of Appeal’s Review of the Legal Year 2013-14. This is a comprehensive document which provides data on the Court’s performance as well as detailed summaries of decisions throughout the year.  These summaries provide a cross section of the Court’s work with an emphasis on judgments that establish new principle or give guidance to lower Courts.

County Court – amended criminal Practice Note

The County Court Criminal Division Practice Note PNCR 1-2015 (21.10.15) has been updated. Please note changes to the following sections, in particular:

ioption online binary option Family Violence Checklist 
The new Family Violence Checklist was developed as a result of a recommendation made by the County Court in its submission to the Royal Commission into Family Violence. The checklist is designed to identify matters which involve family violence, to facilitate improved case management and ensure that alternative arrangements are canvassed early on in the proceedings. The Criminal Division has developed this new checklist which will be filed in all matters committed to the County Court in collaboration with the Office of Public Prosecutions, Criminal Bar Association, Law Institute of Victoria and Victoria Legal Aid. See Sections 4.3(d), 6.3(d), 7.5(e)(3), Attachment 4.

follow url Plea Hearing Requirements 
As a result of feedback from the profession, the Criminal Division has updated the Plea Hearing section to make it clear that the requirements in this section apply where an accused is committed for trial after entering a plea of guilty in the Magistrates’ Court  enter site and where a jury have returned a verdict of guilty following a trial. Furthermore the Defence filing requirement section has been updated to provide further guidance around the content of a Defence Outline of Submissions.
follow site See Sections 7.1-7.2, 7.5(c), 7.13, 7.14-7.15. 

2015 dinner – full, but …

We now have more names than seats. But we expect some members will not be able to attend at the last minute due to court commitments.

So, please email Simon Moglia if you have a seat but can’t attend – so that someone on the waiting list can take your place.

Statistical evaluation of evidence in criminal casework

Tuesday, 27 Oct 2015 at 5:45–7:15PM

JH Mitchell Theatre in the Richard Berry Building, University of Melbourne

Probability and statistics have much to offer the legal system but, with the exception of DNA profile evidence, this potential is barely exploited. Even for DNA profiles, the computation and interpretation of probabilities used to convey weight-of-evidence have been controversial, and mistakes are common.

click Professor Balding will reflect on over 20 years working with DNA profile evidence in the UK criminal justice system, and the big advances made by forensic scientists in their appreciation and use of statistical ideas and methods. Paradoxically, as standards have improved, courts in England and Wales have become more resistant to any numerically-based reasoning beyond reporting a DNA profile match probability. Professor Balding will review statistical approaches to the evaluation of DNA profile evidence, illustrating the many statistical subtleties and complexities, as well as briefly survey comparable issues for other evidence types. He hopes to show why judges have good reason to be wary about statistics in their courts, but also why a blanket exclusion of statistical reasoning would be detrimental to justice, both in cementing past and present bad practice and in missing out on opportunities for major improvements.

Sentencing Manual extensively updated

Judicial College –  Sentencing Manual extensively updated to reflect recent Court of Appeal cases

Topics updated include:

  •  Victim impact statements
  •  Offences involving family violence
  •  Revelation of offences not known to police – Doran discount
  •  Child pornography offences
  •  Drug trafficking and actual or potential harm

Find out more here.

Prisoners at MRC

Corrections Victoria have advised that:

  • Professional visits were restored at the MRC on 7 July – a week after the riot – so there should be little/no impediment getting visits access to prisoners.
  • Phone contact whilst initially problematic should no longer be an issue.
  • In the event practitioners are having difficulty in contacting their clients, or if the wish to clarify information about whether an accused has been confined to their cell as a result of the riots, the contact is: Quality & Compliance Manager, MRC – Phone 9217 7606