Separate Sitting Arrangements System †Free Samples to Students

Question: Discuss about the Separate Sitting Arrangements System. Answer: Introduction: It was alleged that the appellant has inappropriately dealt with certain documents and infringed the provisions of section 140 (4) of Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935. However, the appellant has argued that he was forced by his counsel to admit some parts of the allegation. I observed the examination of the appellant and cross-examination of his counsel. The courtroom was quite big and well maintained. The seats were divided into certain parts. Separate sitting arrangements were there for the family members of the parties, observers and the other people. I was sitting in the desk of observer. The presiding officer was quite reserve and heard both the parties with ultimate concentration. The courtroom was silent during the proceeding. Impression of presiding judge: The presiding officer of the courtroom was quite reserved and well aware of the facts of the case. It has been observed that he has maintained the courtroom environment efficiently and his speeches were clear and audible. He has made certain objection when the defence attorney had fumbled the cross-examination. He had described all the questionable facts with dignity and cleared all the statements to both the parties. He gave fair chances to the appellant so that he can easily conveyance with all the previously described comments. However, he had made certain unreasonable stands in front of the jury. He was seemed to be neutral in nature and talk about the judicial fairness. He had treated every party with dignity and respect. All these characteristics have created pessimistic impression and I was quite sure that he is treating everyone fairly. The prosecutor of the case was well conversant regarding the case and it has been observed that he has done all the relevant research regarding the case law. He maintained all the relevant jurisdictions and he was very confident regarding his case. During examining his client, he did not take any long break and he put question in a concise way. His appearance was quite professional and nothing made him distracted during the court hour. However, negative impression has been created in the case of defence counsel. He had represented himself in an unorganised way and he had not done much homework with his case file. All his papers were designed in an unorganised way and he has spent much time for reshuffling those papers. The presiding officer of the case was very angry with him, as he was distracted during cross-examination. It was quite strain to hear his voice clearly. He was unable to represent himself professionally during the court session. It was my first court observation and I had learnt a lot from the courtroom. The questions and legal provisions cited by the prosecution had enriched my mind. The impartial act of the presiding officer has pleased me and the professional outlooks of the attorneys have helped to increase my respect towards the profession. Reference: R v Samantha SIMMONS [2017] SASCFC 49