List and explain the components of a fair trial.(Long answer question )
Answer fast
Answers
A trial which is observed by trial judge without being partial is a fair trial. Various rights associated with a fair trial are explicitly proclaimed in Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights, as well as numerous other constitutions and declarations throughout the world. There is no binding international lawthat defines what is not a fair trial; for example, the right to a jury trial and other important procedures vary from nation to nation.
Hope it helps you uhhh!!!!!❤️
Mark me as brainliest!!!⚡⚡⚡
Answer:
The attributes of a fair trial cannot, however, be conclusively and exhaustively defined.[26] In Jago v District Court (NSW), Deane J said:
The general notion of fairness which has inspired much of the traditional criminal law of this country defies analytical definition. Nor is it possible to catalogue in the abstract the occurrences outside or within the actual trial which will or may affect the overall trial to an extent that it can no longer properly be regarded as a fair one. Putting to one side cases of actual or ostensible bias, the identification of what does and what does not remove the quality of fairness from an overall trial must proceed on a case by case basis and involve an undesirably, but unavoidably, large content of essentially intuitive judgment. The best that one can do is to formulate relevant general propositions and examples derived from past experience.[27]
10.20 In Dietrich v The Queen, Mason CJ and McHugh J said:
There has been no judicial attempt to list exhaustively the attributes of a fair trial. That is because, in the ordinary course of the criminal appellate process, an appellate court is generally called upon to determine, as here, whether something that was done or said in the course of the trial, or less usually before trial, resulted in the accused being deprived of a fair trial and led to a miscarriage of justice.[28]
10.21 In this same case, Gaudron J said that what is fair ‘very often depends on the circumstances of the particular case’ and ‘notions of fairness are inevitably bound up with prevailing social values’:
It is because of these matters that the inherent powers of a court to prevent injustice are not confined within closed categories. And it is because of those same matters that, save where clear categories have emerged, the inquiry as to what is fair must be particular and individual.[29]
10.22 Testing a given law against an accepted attribute of a fair trial may therefore be contrasted with an approach that focuses on whether, in a particular case, justice was done in practice. In a case concerning administrative law, but in terms said to have more general application, Gleeson CJ said:
Fairness is not an abstract concept. It is essentially practical. Whether one talks in terms of procedural fairness or natural justice, the concern of the law is to avoid practical injustice.[30]
10.23 The plurality in Assistant Commissioner Michael James Condon v Pompano, which approved Gleeson CJ’s statement, said that the ‘rules of procedural fairness do not have immutably fixed content’.[31] Gageler J said:
Suggestions that there are exceptions to procedural fairness in the common practices of courts in Australia are unfounded. The suggested exceptions are more apparent than real … All are examples of modifications or adjustments to ordinary procedures, invariably within an overall process that, viewed in its entirety, entails procedural fairness.[32]
10.24 Evidently, considerable care must be taken in identifying laws that interfere with the right to a fair trial and, as discussed in Chapter 15, with procedural fairness in administrative decision making. Such laws must be understood in their broader context, and with a view to their practical application. It is unlikely that such laws can be subject to simple tests which will effortlessly reveal whether the law is justified or not.
10.25 Much might therefore depend on whether the court retains its discretion to ensure the trial is run fairly. Judges play the central role in ensuring the fairness of trials, and have inherent powers to ensure a trial is run fairly. In Dietrich v The Queen, Gaudron J said that the ‘requirement of fairness is not only independent, it is intrinsic and inherent’:
Every judge in every criminal trial has all powers necessary or expedient to prevent unfairness in the trial. Of course, particular powers serving the same end may be conferred by statute or confirmed by rules of court.
hope you got it the answer.......