4 ms·

I don't see how the different jurisdictions of the high courts really plays into this. Everything in the Bill of Rights (with the exception of the right to jury

I don't see how the different jurisdictions of the high courts really plays into this. Everything in the Bill of Rights (with the exception of the right to jury trial in civil cases, recognized substantially by every state anyway) is applied to the states as a matter of federal law and is therefore subject to review by the federal Supreme Court. For things not implicating any federal question, why is having an appeal to the federal Supreme Court important? Having an extra layer of government does not grant you more rights in and of itself.

skissane 9y ago
From the criminal appellants viewpoint, it is in their interests to have as many opportunities to appeal and as many grounds to appeal as possible. The more opportunities to appeal, the greater chance that one of your appeals may turn out favourably to you. So, in the US system, you cannot appeal points of state law to federal courts, but in the Australian system you can, so you have more opportunities to appeal in Australia. Plus, AEDPA limits access to federal habeas corpus (which is a form of collateral appeal as opposed to direct appeal), whereas there is no corresponding limitation under Australian law. How does this to relate to rights? Well, arguably one of our rights is the right to appeal adverse judicial decisions. And the Australian legal system grants more extensive rights in that area than the US one does.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  And, of course judicial process is the means by which other rights are given effect, so less appeal opportunities translates, the reliability of the individual courts being equal, to less effective protection of whatever rights exist on paper.
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  Again, if a state law case implicates any federal issues, such as the Bill of Rights, then you can appeal to the US Supreme Court. For those not well-versed in law, this discussion is very misleading. Appellate courts do not retry facts, they only decide if there was an error of law in the lower court. American states retain a lot more power than Australian states do, including the right to their own common law and to apply their own judicial philosophy. To substitute the judgment of the federal courts on issues of purely state law is to abolish federalism to a large degree.
  - skissane 9y ago
    > For those not well-versed in law, this discussion is very misleading. Appellate courts do not retry facts, they only decide if there was an error of law in the lower court. Appellate courts (at least in some systems) are allowed to reopen the facts, for example to consider new evidence not available at the time of trial - see e.g. http://www.courtofappealbc.ca/appellant-guidebook/3.5-introducing-new-evidence http://www.courtofappealbc.ca/appellant-guidebook/3.5-introd... > American states retain a lot more power than Australian states do, including the right to their own common law and to apply their own judicial philosophy. To substitute the judgment of the federal courts on issues of purely state law is to abolish federalism to a large degree. Australian state court systems have always been subject to review by higher courts. Originally by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London, and now the High Court of Australia has taken over that jurisdiction. I don't think it is reasonable to say that because we do federalism differently than the US, we don't do federalism at all. It is also worth keeping in mind that there is a potential tension between states rights and individual rights. If a state is trying to limit my rights as an individual, and the federal government or courts wants to stop that, and "states rights" limit the ability of the federal government or courts to step in and protect my individual rights, then that is a case in which my individual rights are being sacrificed to protect "states rights". So, I'd say that in the matter of appeals, the US chooses to prioritise states rights over individual rights in a way in which Australia doesn't.
    - marcoperaza 9y ago
      You seem convinced that additional appeals can only work in the defendants favor. Suppose that a state supreme court decides to give more rights to defendants under its common law. Suppose the state supreme court finds for a defendant based on that. Allowing the prosecution to appeal that decision to the federal supreme court actually HURTS the defendant. I'm not saying there's no federalism in Australia. I'm saying that the federalism is substantially limited by having one general common law to rule them all. And also by imposing a single approach to judicial decision making. Also, I think you continue to misrepresent the situation. You have every right to appeal a violation of your federally-granted rights to the federal Supreme Court. It is only rights granted to you only by your state that cannot, generally, be appealed. As I said above, it also means that prosecutors cannot try to get a decision made for you, by a state court on the basis of state law, overturned by the federal courts. So it cuts both ways.

skissane 9y ago

From the criminal appellants viewpoint, it is in their interests to have as many opportunities to appeal and as many grounds to appeal as possible. The more opportunities to appeal, the greater chance that one of your appeals may turn out favourably to you. So, in the US system, you cannot appeal points of state law to federal courts, but in the Australian system you can, so you have more opportunities to appeal in Australia. Plus, AEDPA limits access to federal habeas corpus (which is a form of collateral appeal as opposed to direct appeal), whereas there is no corresponding limitation under Australian law. How does this to relate to rights? Well, arguably one of our rights is the right to appeal adverse judicial decisions. And the Australian legal system grants more extensive rights in that area than the US one does.

dragonwriter 9y ago
And, of course judicial process is the means by which other rights are given effect, so less appeal opportunities translates, the reliability of the individual courts being equal, to less effective protection of whatever rights exist on paper.
marcoperaza 9y ago
Again, if a state law case implicates any federal issues, such as the Bill of Rights, then you can appeal to the US Supreme Court. For those not well-versed in law, this discussion is very misleading. Appellate courts do not retry facts, they only decide if there was an error of law in the lower court. American states retain a lot more power than Australian states do, including the right to their own common law and to apply their own judicial philosophy. To substitute the judgment of the federal courts on issues of purely state law is to abolish federalism to a large degree.
- skissane 9y ago
  > For those not well-versed in law, this discussion is very misleading. Appellate courts do not retry facts, they only decide if there was an error of law in the lower court. Appellate courts (at least in some systems) are allowed to reopen the facts, for example to consider new evidence not available at the time of trial - see e.g. http://www.courtofappealbc.ca/appellant-guidebook/3.5-introducing-new-evidence http://www.courtofappealbc.ca/appellant-guidebook/3.5-introd... > American states retain a lot more power than Australian states do, including the right to their own common law and to apply their own judicial philosophy. To substitute the judgment of the federal courts on issues of purely state law is to abolish federalism to a large degree. Australian state court systems have always been subject to review by higher courts. Originally by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London, and now the High Court of Australia has taken over that jurisdiction. I don't think it is reasonable to say that because we do federalism differently than the US, we don't do federalism at all. It is also worth keeping in mind that there is a potential tension between states rights and individual rights. If a state is trying to limit my rights as an individual, and the federal government or courts wants to stop that, and "states rights" limit the ability of the federal government or courts to step in and protect my individual rights, then that is a case in which my individual rights are being sacrificed to protect "states rights". So, I'd say that in the matter of appeals, the US chooses to prioritise states rights over individual rights in a way in which Australia doesn't.
  - marcoperaza 9y ago
    You seem convinced that additional appeals can only work in the defendants favor. Suppose that a state supreme court decides to give more rights to defendants under its common law. Suppose the state supreme court finds for a defendant based on that. Allowing the prosecution to appeal that decision to the federal supreme court actually HURTS the defendant. I'm not saying there's no federalism in Australia. I'm saying that the federalism is substantially limited by having one general common law to rule them all. And also by imposing a single approach to judicial decision making. Also, I think you continue to misrepresent the situation. You have every right to appeal a violation of your federally-granted rights to the federal Supreme Court. It is only rights granted to you only by your state that cannot, generally, be appealed. As I said above, it also means that prosecutors cannot try to get a decision made for you, by a state court on the basis of state law, overturned by the federal courts. So it cuts both ways.