Legal question (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter danal353
- Start date
sir-study-alot
Member
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2009
- Messages
- 264
- Gender
- Male
- HSC
- 2009
statute law - anti-discrimination act
common law
and consistution -
i rthink
common law
and consistution -
i rthink
heheheh I was looking at that question wondering the same thing just before. I suppose the courts system (civil law), lobbying politically through self-representation or using a local member (e.g. MPs), and maybe use of an ombudsman, or office of fair trading? I'm pretty sure either way that sir study's advice is wrong, that's not referring to ACCESS to justice, rather just how justice is enforced and encouraged.
so MPs, court system and ombudsman? how about legal aid?
jessica.anne
Member
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 54
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
I'm not sure, but I think it may be because the constitution says there is a presumption of innocence until proven guilty and right to fair trial?
Edit: I thought lobbying/lobby groups were informal means?
First of all, my advice isn't golden, I'm basically cramming atm. That's just my take on what it's asking. Legal aid encourages and enhances the ability to access through the courts systems, so if you said courts I doubt they'd also take legal aid (it's not access in itself, just a catalyst for access to occur).
Yes, the court system.
3 ways Legal system provides justice:
1. Legal aid
2. Alternate Dispute Resolution
3. Right to appeal a decision
those are ways human rights are protected under Domestic law.
ah I see
But that's not providing access to justice. Are you sure? I mean, ADR would probably be taken, courts would, but I still doubt legal aid and the right to appeal decisions; those aren't really example of access to justice separate from the courts system.
legal aid provides justice to those who cannot afford proper legal representation. The provision of Legal aid has enabled many financially disadvantages individuals to access justice through the court system.
The right to appeal does achieve justice to individuals, whereby the penalities emposed were too severe, a party failed to prove all elements of the offence and/or new evidence has appeared.
They do provide justice for the individual as these will provide a fairer decision.
If a person is poor and cannot afford legal rep, and he presents his case very poorly and in return gets punished- where's the justice in that?
But is achieving justice achieving access to justice? If so, then your criteria would mean that when a murder has been sent to gaol, justice has been accessed. Rather, in my hypothetical, justice has been achieved, however, not accessed. Do you see my point?
Yeah, the question is, does access to justice mean the same thing as justice itself
Edit: Thanks, Zazzy, for repeating exactly what biibii said. Though I guess it's another opinion against me, ignoring the 'access' component of the question.
Edit: Thanks, Zazzy, for repeating exactly what biibii said. Though I guess it's another opinion against me, ignoring the 'access' component of the question.
access to justice NOT how laws are made
lol sorry I don't get what your saying.
Btw there are more than three ways, I just wrote down the three for court system
Okay I think I get what you're saying
But don't you think providing legal aid, is a way of achieving access to justice?
Besides the point that it achieves justice, don't you think without it, the person wouldnt be able to have access to justice?
Did that confuse you?
Yes, maybe legal aid is, but it's too similar to courts to be given with courts as one of the other reasons. Because accessing the court with a lawyer is achieving access; irrelevant of whether legal aid was used or not. Just getting down to the finer points of it.
Another access in trying to achieve justice is the provisions of interpretations in court- people with language difficulty