Assessment three (essay): - 1500 words

Assessment three (essay): - 1500 words

You are to research the conviction and subsequent acquittal of either Lindy Chamberland or Cardinal George Pell (not both).

Outline the evidence on which the person was convicted at trial and explain why the conviction was later overturned. In your answer reflect upon your knowledge of the investigative process and the nature and admissibility of evidence.

You may use any source documents that you like, but the most significant source documents have been uploaded to vUWS for your convenience. In relation to the Lindy Chamberlain case, the main source document is the Morling Royal Commission. In relation to Cardinal George Pell, it is both the Victorian Supreme Court decision of 2019 and the subsequent High Court decision of 2020.

Ensure that your name and student number is placed on your individual essay. You do NOT need an assignment covering sheet as it is a Turnitin assignment.

SUBMIT THE ASSESSMENT VIA THE TURNITIN LINK

A brief timeline is included below to assist you in understanding the cases.

Lindy Chamberlain:

1980 disappearance of baby Azaria Chamberlain (parents Lindy & Michael Chamberlain).

1980/1 First coronial inquest into the disappearance and presumed death of Azaria accepts Lindys version that a dingo took the baby.

2nd inquest recommends that jury might accept that baby Azaria was murdered.

1982 Lindy Chamberlain convicted of murdering Azaria.

Lindys Appeal to Federal Court dismissed

1984 Lindys Appeal to High Court dismissed

2nd February 1986 Azarias jacket found

7th February 1986 Lindy released from prison on remission

Morling Royal Commission of inquiry (Your main source document on vUWS).

1987 Lindy pardoned

1988 Lindys conviction for murder quashed by Supreme Court

1992 Lindy paid $1.3 million

1995 3rd inquest into the disappearance returns an open verdict (ie: dont know how Azaria died)

2012 coroners verdict that a dingo killed Azaria.

Cardinal Pell:

August 2018 - 1st Victorian County Court cannot reach a verdict on Pells guilt and a retrial is ordered.

11th December 2018 2nd Victorian County Court jury finds Pell guilty.

21st August 2019 Victorian Supreme Court rejects Pells appeal on conviction 2:1 (Justice Weinberg dissenting).

7th April 2020 High Court verdict acquits Pell of charges.

https://www.hcourt.gov.au/cases/case_m112-2019

Fail Pass Credit Distinction HD

One: Give a brief overview of the progress of the matter from the original incident through the criminal, coronial and/or appellate courts (5 marks). Student fails to show even a rudimentary understanding of the legal or investigative process from the original complaint; through the original coronial or criminal court to the appellate courts or royal commission; to subsequent acquittal. Student demonstrates a rudimentary, but flawed knowledge of the process from original complaint to original conviction to the subsequent acquittal. Student demonstrates an understanding of the original conviction and the key appellate decisions leading to acquittal. Student demonstrates a clear understanding of all stages of the legal process from original conviction to acquittal. Student demonstrates a clear understanding of all stages of the legal process from original conviction to acquittal emphasising the key source documents.

Two: Identify the offence(s) for which they were convicted (2 marks). Student fails to demonstrate any understanding of the offences for which Cardinal Pell or Lindy Chamberlain were convicted. Student demonstrates a rudimentary explanation of the offences for which they were convicted with some error. Student gives a clear explanation of the nature of the offences for which they were convicted. Student gives a clear explanation of the nature and number of offences for which they were convicted. Student gives a clear explanation of the nature, number and victim of the offences for which they were convicted.

Three: Explain the evidence on which the conviction was based (ie: the prosecution case at trial) (8 marks). Student fails to demonstrate any understanding of the key elements of the prosecution case. Student shows limited understanding of elements of the prosecution case, although with error and omissions. Student shows a reasonable understanding of most key elements of the prosecution case although with errors and omissions. Student demonstrates a clear understanding of most key elements of the prosecution case. Student demonstrates a clear understanding of both the key elements of the prosecution case and the supporting arguments.

Four: Outline the issues raised by the defence in attempting to overturn the conviction (ie: this can include both the original defence case at trial and any subsequent arguments raised in appellate courts) (8 Marks). Student fails to demonstrate any understanding of the arguments raised by the defence in either the original trial or subsequent appellate courts or commissions of inquiry. Student engages in some limited discussion of the arguments raised by the defence in either the original trial or the subsequent appellate courts of commission of inquiry, although with omissions or errors. Student demonstrates a reasonable understanding of the key arguments made by the defence in either the original trial or the subsequent appellate courts or commissions of inquiry. Student demonstrates a good understanding of the key arguments raised by the defence and shows an understanding of the development of the defence case through subsequent appeals. Students should demonstrate a sound understanding of the defence case in the original trial courts and the development of the defence case over time leading to acquittal.

Five: Outline the decision of the appellate courts or commission of inquiry & their reason for overturning the conviction (8 marks). Student fails to demonstrate in any meaningful way why the original conviction was overturned. Student gives a rudimentary explanation for why the original decision was eventually overturned. Student shows a reasonable understanding of the process and reasoning of the appellate court or commission of inquiry leading to their acquittal. Student shows a good understanding of the key arguments of the appellate court or commission of inquiry (key source documents) and the reasons for overturning the original conviction. Student shows a superior understanding of the arguments raised in the appellate court(s) or commission of inquiry and is able to explain the failure of the defence argument in the initial appellate court (Victorian Supreme Court of Appeal or Federal Court) and the ultimate success of the defence argument in the final court of appeal.

Six: Reflect upon the process of conviction and acquittal in light of the investigative process and the nature and admissibility of evidence as outlined in lectures (5 marks). Student shows no ability to relate the process of conviction and subsequent acquittal (the court case) to the investigative process and the nature and rules of evidence as outlined in the lectures. Student identifies some relationship between the court case and the investigative process, and the nature and rules of evidence as outlined in the lectures. Student shows a clear ability to relate the court case to the investigative process and the nature and rules of evidence as outlined in the lectures. Student draws a number of links between the lecture material and the failures of the court system in their chosen case (ie: Lindy Chamberlain or Cardinal George Pell). Student draws a number of links between the lecture material and their chosen case in a manner which shows a superior understanding of the lecture material and is well integrated into their essay structure. Seven: Presents work professionally, with clear academic writing and within

the word limit (4 marks) Work lacks structure; little evidence paper has been edited; terminology: little or incorrect use of technical terminology; frequent spelling/typographic errors. Poor paraphrasing or over reliance on

quotes. Significantly below or above the word limit. Generally clear; paper/ presentation has introduction, body and conclusion; developed with students voice; sentences mostly coherent and grammatically correct; within word limit; some typographic and /or spelling errors. Well-structured and coherent text;

effective grammatical expression; adheres to word limit; uses

technical terminology correctly; minor

typographic and / or spelling errors. Clear and concise structure;

grammar and syntax mostly correct; cohesive text within word limit; discriminating use of appropriate vocabulary; few typographic or

spelling errors. Well-structured paper or innovative

presentation within the word limit; explicitly identifies the key issues; cohesive, grammatically correct structure; very few

typographic or spelling errors. Competent integration of

evidence.