The criminal investigation process, to a significant extent, balances the rights of victims, suspects, and society. The balance of rights within any criminal matter is paramount to ensuring the vital aspects of fairness, equity, and access are upheld within the contemporary Australian legal system. The procedures with regard to search and seizure, police powers, detention, and interrogation consolidate the notion that the criminal investigation process, to a significant extent, balances the rights of victims, suspects, and society.
Protocols and procedures with regard to search and seizure, to a significant extent, balance the rights of victims, suspects, and society. The Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW) empowers police to “search people and seize and detain things” in certain circumstances, including the power to stop and search those where they “believe on reasonable grounds” that the person is carrying something stolen or used in the commission of an indictable offense. Not only does this power exemplify the role of discretion utilized by police officers, inherently increases resource efficiency. This notion is substantiated by the August 2019 article from the Daily Telegraph NSW ski fields: Positive drug tests at Thredbo, Jindabyne nightspots, wherein reports found that an “estimated 29 out of 30 searches led to the seizure of drugs.” This proves the fact that the search and seizure protocols did in fact balance the rights of victims, suspects, and society, as a mere 1 in 30 searches revealed no drugs. In doing so, this highlights the enforceability of ‘LEPRA’, as well as the criminal investigation process, as the exercise of said process, in an overwhelming majority of cases, ended in the upholding of justice. Thus, it is evident, that through the provisions with reference to search and seizure, the criminal investigation system balances the rights of victims, suspects, and society, to a significant extent.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
The powers awarded to police, including those under special circumstances, demonstrate the notion that the criminal investigation system, to a significant extent, balances the rights of victims, suspects, and society. ‘LEPRA’ works in tandem with the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission Act 2016 (NSW), in order to ensure impartiality within the criminal investigation process. The purpose of the Act is to serve independently of the NSW Police Force and the NSW Crime Commission, to inspect police conduct. Not only does this inherently increase accountability and responsiveness within the criminal investigation process, but it also maximizes resource efficiency, in that it took over the roles formerly held by the Police Integrity Commission and the Police Office of the Ombudsman. This effect is evident through the instance of the Roberto Curti incident of 2012, where Curti was killed by excessive use of force; he was tasered 14 times for feeling a low-level offense. 2014 ABC News Article Roberto Laudisio Curti death: Policeman involved in arrest found guilty of assault, three other officers cleared speaks to the investigation and accountability given to police officers, as “one police officer… was given… a guilty finding,” reconsolidating the resource-efficient nature of the powers awarded to police within the criminal investigation process. Ergo, it is clear that through the exercise of police powers, the criminal investigation process, to a significant extent, balances the rights of victims, suspects, and society.
The measures and provisions with regard to detention and interrogation consolidate the fact that the criminal investigation process, to a significant extent, balances the rights of victims, suspects, and society. The Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW) denotes that “police may only detain a suspect for four hours, by which time the person must either be charged or unconditionally released.” In itself, this balances the rights of all involved parties, as police may still question potential perpetrators, whilst still limiting the ability for malicious prosecution, or the continual interrogation and detention of innocent parties. This meets society’s moral and ethical standard of innocence until proven guilty, and maintains the enforceability of laws within the criminal investigation process. Moreover, in a ruling from Driscoll (1977) HCA, an unsigned, oral confession is inadmissible as evidence. While it may seem as though this hampers resource efficiency, it places a greater significance on balancing the rights of suspects; it upholds the moral and ethical standard of innocence until proven guilty. Therefore, through the provisions and protocols surrounding detention and interrogation, it is clear that the criminal investigation process, to a significant extent, balances the rights of victims, suspects, and society.
Therefore, it can be seen through the provisions with regard to search and seizure, police powers, detention, and interrogation, that the criminal investigation process, to a significant extent, balances the rights of victims, suspects, and society. As Australia’s contemporary legal system fosters an environment for reform and change, it is clear that given the current trajectory of the status of rights of the aforementioned processes, this situation will continue to improve.
Stuck on your essay?
