Explain the structure of the court hierarchy and the features of the adversarial system of trial.

What this dot point is asking

This dot point has two linked parts: the way courts are ranked, and the way trials are run.

The court hierarchy is the ranking of courts from lowest to highest. In Tasmania the main courts are the Magistrates Court (which hears minor criminal matters and smaller civil claims) and the Supreme Court of Tasmania (which hears serious criminal cases such as murder, larger civil disputes, and appeals from the Magistrates Court). Appeals from the Supreme Court can go to the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania, also called the Court of Criminal Appeal in criminal matters. At the national level sit the federal courts, including the Federal Court of Australia and the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. At the very top is the High Court of Australia, the final court of appeal for the whole country and the court that interprets the Constitution.

A hierarchy exists for several reasons. It allows specialisation, so minor matters are dealt with quickly in lower courts while serious matters go to higher courts. It enables a system of appeals, so a party who believes a court made an error can ask a higher court to review the decision. It also makes the doctrine of precedent work.

Precedent depends on the hierarchy. A decision of the High Court binds all Australian courts below it. A Supreme Court of Tasmania decision binds the Tasmanian Magistrates Court. Courts can sometimes distinguish a precedent if the facts are materially different, and higher courts can overrule earlier decisions. This gives the law both consistency and the ability to develop.

The adversarial system is the method Australia uses to conduct trials. Its main features are:

• Two opposing sides (the parties) each present their own case. In a criminal trial this is the prosecution against the accused; in a civil trial it is the plaintiff against the defendant.
• The judge (or magistrate) acts as an impartial umpire who controls the trial, rules on law and procedure, and does not investigate or take sides.
• The parties, usually through lawyers, decide what evidence to call and which witnesses to question, including cross-examination of the other side's witnesses.
• Strict rules of evidence and procedure govern what can be presented and how.
• The burden of proof falls on the party bringing the case. In criminal trials the prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; in civil trials the plaintiff must prove the claim on the balance of probabilities.

The adversarial system is often contrasted with the inquisitorial system used in many European countries, where the judge actively investigates the facts and questions witnesses. Strengths of the adversarial approach include the impartiality of the decision-maker and the chance for each side to fully test the other's evidence. Criticisms include cost, delay, and the advantage that a well-resourced party with better lawyers may hold.

In exam responses, sketch the hierarchy from Magistrates Court up to the High Court, link it to appeals and precedent, then describe the adversarial trial features and the two standards of proof.