Green and Karneval should be charged with both Civil and Criminal cases. A civil charge should be imposed to green for his hate speech that he made against Karneval. In this regard, a heavy fine should be imposed for his remarks by the QLD Courts.
A criminal charge should be imposed on Karneval for attacking green and severely injured him. A maximum term of imprisonment should be imposed on Karneval for attacking (up to 7 years). (Jurisdiction=Queensland, 2011)
Discuss the role of precedent in the court’s determination of the matter?
There is a cruel role of precedent in the court’s determination of the issue. A precedent or authority is a standard or law recognized in a previous permissible case. The Proceedings should include the punishment of both Green and Karneval for their acts. Karneval should be given a long term imprisonment for up to 7 years or more and a fine up to $10000 so that he would not attack anyone in the future. Karneval’s behavior was unethical, and no one is allowed to attack others any circumstances. Green should also be punished for abusing and should be imposed a fine of $1000 and prison for up to 3 months. (“High Court of Australia,” n.d.)
Compare and contrast the differences between any civil actions Green may pursue and the criminal proceedings instigated by police (outlined how civil cases are different from criminal including the onus of proof required for both civil and criminal law).
Queensland’s courts have many courts in it which includes Magistrates Court, Supreme Court, and District Court. These courts hear all the criminal and civil cases:
Civil cases are the clashes among two or more parties (individuals or organizations) where one party go to court to sue the other, usually for reimbursement for damage done or harm sustained.
Criminal cases consist of violations against the wider community, fluctuating from spoiling to killing. (“Queensland Legislation,” n.d.)
A civil action is needed to be taken against Green for abusing Karneval and telling him to leave the country as he is a refugee. Nobody is allowed under any condition to ask a person to leave the country for being a refugee. Police should instigate civil proceeding against Green
Which party initiates the proceedings and why?
Green is responsible for the initiation of the proceedings because Green has distracted the party by changing the topic to refugees. Green abuse Keneval and shout him to return to his country as he is a refugee. Under Australian Law, Nobody is allowed to advise anyone to leave the country if the government of the county/state is allowing him to stay. So Green has initiated the proceedings
Who has the burden/onus of proof?
Green’s severe injury is the burden/onus of proof. He has suffered a serious injury on his right check that requires 80 stitches, and his injury has made him medically unfit to go to work for two months.
So the medical reports of these injuries are the burden/onus of proof for Green in the court.
What is the standard of proof for each matter?
In Green’s Case, his severe injury is the standard of proof. He has suffered a serious injury on his right check that requires 80 stitches, and he was unable to return to work for two months. So the medical reports of these injuries are the standard of proof for Green in the court. Criminal proceedings should be made in Karneval’s case.
In Karneval’s Case, The standard of proof is the abusing remarks of Green about the refugees that disturb Karneval and forced him to hit back to Green. Green’s comments that Karneval should go back to his country as he is a refugee is the main standard of proof for Karnaval’s case. Civil proceedings should be made in Karneval’s case.
Where would you find the definition of this term that the court must use?
The Court must use the definition of Grievous bodily harm or Aggravated Assault. This definition should be stated by the court because the victim is severely injured. If the injury is not that serious, then the definition should be wounding.
If the term was not defined in legislation, discuss where else the judge/magistrate may look for guidance when interpreting the meaning of the term and provide the authoritative reference that supports this approach?
If the terms are not defined in legislation, The Court/Magistrate can take guidance from the constitution of the state or Law books. When the courts go over the procedure of inferring legislation, whether it is a particular term, a phrase, or an entire section, the magistrates and judges who make the function of judicial translator use some strategies to support them. (Cheh, 1990)