Court Jurisdiction Questions

Hi all, here is the first question.

Question 1:

Read the following case study.

Martin was charged in the Magistrates’ Court with using a mobile phone while driving. A police officer gave evidence that he had observed Martin speaking on a mobile phone as Martin drove through an intersection. The magistrate found Martin guilty of the offence. Martin lodged an appeal against his conviction in the County Court. He claimed that the police officer could not have observed that he was holding a mobile phone as he drove through the intersection and that he should not have been convicted.

a. Outline the jurisdiction of the Magistrates’ Court.

The Magistrates court has no appellate criminal or civil jurisdiction. In addition the Magistrate Courts original civil jurisdiction is all civil cases up to the value of $100,000. Although, for claims under $10,000 the process of Arbitration is used to resolve the dispute. Furthermore, the original criminal jurisdiction of the Magistrates Court is all summary offences, that is those cases that are heard summarily without the right to jury and/or indictment. For example, road traffic offences as outline in the Road Safety Act 1986. Also, indictable offences tried summarily, that is where the processes for the trial is altered to that of a summary offence without the right to jury or indictment, with the permission of state and defendant are heard in the Magistrates court. Moreover, the Magistrates Court hears committal hearings (where it is determined if the state has enough evidence to proceed with a trail and secure a conviction) as well as issuing a range of warrants (eg. Arrest warrant) and also bail applications. All trails in the Magistrates Court are heard by one Magistrate.

6 marks

My comments:

For jurisdiction questions I always like to state what each court cannot do in the first line or two. ie. for the magistrates court I would always state that there is no appellate criminal nor civil jurisdiction. Thereby it is not to be forgotten later and is effectively out-of-the-way.

It also may have been a little pedantic of me but I would always state original or appellate criminal and/or civil. Because I didn’t want to make the assumption that saying original jurisdiction would automatically be considered to account for both.

Effectively my structure was get the ‘simple’ things done initially then get nit picky….

I hope this can help you,
JB