Okay, for Crime I'm basically using the Skaf case, as it tends to be more flexible, then other cases. I don't know if your familiar with it, so forgive me if I seem to be talking down to you. So basically, 14 boys lured some girls to a various area. 1 boy called ahead, so he was an accessory before the fact. M and B, were two people who were principles, but as they were still calassified as children, as an effective form of protection, there names werent disclosed. However they were only sentenced 4 and 5 years respectively. This is as Judges could only give the maximum amount of years the statute allowed, as there was no real law for assault in company yet. Community outrage followed, so the Parliament had to fast-track a reform ammendment to the Crimes Act (Assault in company). Therefore, the next offenders who were brought to court, got an increase in years, to make it more effective for the victim.
Rv Mohamad Skaf- 44yrs, as he showed remorse, and was intellectually challenged, so they were some mitigating factors, which the judge had to take into account. He had a minimum term of 40yrs.
Rv Bilal Skaf (2002)- 55yrs, as some aggravating factors included that he showed no remorse, adn he was the leader.
Circumstances of hte offence includes- that it was cleverly orchestrated, strong mens rea and actus rea and causation. As they held the girls at knife point.
Not allowed bail due to the seriousness of the case, so they were on remand- so you can put that under criminal process. They didnt get legal aid as they failed the means test. Couldn't have any defences as they pleaded not-guilty.
Court heirarchy- They had a commital hearing at Bankstown local court to determine whether it was a prima facie case. So it was sent to the District Court, where a jury found them guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Post-sentencing decision- Bilal was moved to a super maximum prison as he tried to escape. Also, both brothers applied to appeal their case due to media influence, it wasnt successful though.
You can also bring in problems relating to procedural fairness if jurors investigate themselves to have a re-trial. Also, with a retrial theres a problem with victims having to undergo trauma once more, as opposed to the rights of the alledged offender to have a re-trial.
Anyway, I hope that helped, basically, you have to incorporate the different dot-points and see where the case fits in with them. So, like if you have a question suche as "Factors affecting the sentencing decision will always reflect the values and standards of society" evaluate. One of the points would be mentioning mitigating and aggravating factors, defining them, then you would say, the use of these factors is reflected in the case of the Skaf brothers, then explain how it was used there, and just link it to a portrayal in some newspaper article or tv program.
