Law Report – Appendix Court | Date | Name | Case | Stage | Noted as |

Supreme | 25/03/09 | Anthony Farell V R | Criminal | Appeal | C1 | | | Mohammed Ali V South Eastern Sydney Area Health Service | Civil | Trial | C2 | | | Gerard Michael Mcguirk V UNSW | Civil | Trial | C3 | District | 27/03/09 | R V Liam Paul Irwin | Criminal | Appeal (severity) | C4 | | | R V Warren James Ure | Criminal | Trial (adjourned for sentence – part heard) |

C5 |

Court Report
Note: Refer to appendix for the case denoted by C1-5]
The court is the medium in which judges and magistrates interpret the constitution as it applies today to administer justice; their judgements ultimately contribute to the doctrine of precedents. Australia has mainly adopted an adversarial system within a hierarchical court system in which the courts have specific jurisdictions. Two such examples witnessed are the District and the Supreme Courts – proceedings may be similar but their severity may differ but both seek to serve justice.
At the district court cases C4 and C5 were seen first-hand with the former being a criminal appeal and the latter a criminal trial. In C4 the defendant had become a nuisance and acted violently. Subsequently he was placed under a bond, this was breached which led to the magistrate sentencing an imprisonment term but was appealed successfully against. Additionally, in C5 the defendant was prosecuted for carrying illicit drugs but argument focused on whether he was a courier or the principal. During the period of observation at the Supreme Court case C1-3 was heard. On one hand C1 was a criminal appeal against multiple sentences of armed robbery. On the other hand C2 and C3 were over negligence and defamation respectively. These well reflect the hierarchical system whereby a judgement made can be appealed at a higher court with the high