Evaluate the extent to which the law balances the rights of victims,

offenders and society during the criminal trial process

The criminal trial process aims to achieve justice and relies on verdicts beyond
reasonable doubt. The criminal trial process in Australia recognizes the
importance of equality and recognizes the right that all involved in the trial have
to prove their case. The aim is to achieve justice and protect society. However
the aim is to rehabilitate those who have committed crimes so they can
participate in society, however not if they are a danger to society, as in the case
of Katherine Knight, who was imprisoned for life due to the fact she could not be
rehabilitated. Although the criminal trial process aims to achieve justice and
throughout balance the rights of all involved, this is a difficult thing to achieve.

In Australia every citizen has the right to a fair trial free from bias. Those who
commit crimes based on the High Court Ruling in 1992 of Deitrich v Queen,have
the right to a lawyer/ legal representation. This ensures that the criminal trial
process is not just sentencing accused offenders of crime. This gives a greater
equity and means that the accused has a chance to rebuke or prove their case. It
is by having these measures that the criminal trial process protects the rights of
offenders. Offenders also have the right to remain silent in prior interviews to
the court room. Offenders also have the opportunity in Australia to appeal their
sentence only on a point of law but through this, they are given an ability to
achieve justice for themselves.

In Australia the Statuary and Judicial guidelines lay out mandatory sentencing
that aims to promote equity in sentencing offenders of crime. The crimes act
1900 secion 3A states the maximum and minimum sentences that can be issued
for various crimes and also provides guidelines for what may constitute a
mitigating and aggravating factor in the crime and how these should affect the
sentence received by the offender. Through this legislation, justice should ve
achieved not only for the victim but also the offender, as you cant jusge two
people who have committed exactly the same crime two completely different
sentences. It also ensures that for serious crimes, offenders do not just get off.
However there are times when mandatory sentence or a sentence given can be
displeasing to the victim and to society. It is important also to note that in cases
of murder, where the victim cannot speak for themselves such as the case of Gary
Mills, it can seem like justice is not achieved for the family. Gary Mills was
charged with murder after strangling his wife with an extension cord, however
after arguing that he was provoked, a partial defence to murder. he was charged
with 10 years imprisonment, and served only 5 years. Jolene Mills, who was
murdered had no ability to defend herself. In this case Justice has not been
achieved for the victim. The issue raised in this case is whether, in the case of
deceased victims the criminal trial process, is allowing offenders to use defences
to receive more lenient sentences based on their word and account of events. In
this regard the victims families rights have not been met, however the offenders
right to argue their case has been. This balancing of rights as seen here is difficult
and it is impossible to please all.


In the Criminal trial process the victim has the opportunity to express, their
account of events. They can do this through a witness statement as well as a
witness impact statement outlining the impact that the crime has had on them.
Although these opportunities are available often victims feel that they are being
put on trial by the end of this process. They are interrogated, and cross
examined just as the offender is. This recognizes that the offender is innocent
until proven guilty however; in recognizing this victim can sometimes be
treated in the same manner as a murderer. Witness impact statements, are not a
certified legal document in the courtroom, but a description of the impacts that
the crime has had on the victim. When being read out they are not allowed to be
questioned and the judge has a choice as to whether they take it into
consideration. This means that victim although having the right to put this
statement forward, may not be heard and their thoughts are being disregarded.
Although there are measures in place allowing for victims to have a
representative in court and for their opinions and accounts to be heard, if they
can be disregarded, it is basically having a right and taking it away. This was the
case in the R v Slack case. In which a young girl was sexually assaulted by a male
authoritive figure at a friends sleepover. Her witness impact statement was read
in court, however the judge did not take it into consideration, questioning its
validity. This clearly shows that although victims have the ability to express their
accounts, they do not have to be taken into consideration.

The aim of the criminal justice system is to protect society from those who are a
threat, however rehabilitate them to ensure they can become members of society
again. This also ensures that the right of all Australians to live in a country free
from threat of violence is being upheld. By also having a Jury made up of
respectful ordinary citizens, the criminal trial process is deemed fair. If the
general public can be involved in the decision making, it ensures that society has
a say.

aims to balance the rights of all involved, however this is not always met and can
be a tricky task to accomplish. By granting and upholding the rights of one
individual, others can be not met or disregarded. Although justice is the aim of
the criminal trial process sometimes in trying to achieve this, the rights of all
involved arent being met.