NCJ Number
137952
Journal
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology Volume: 24 Issue: 3 Dated: (December 1991) Pages: 219-240
Date Published
1991
Length
22 pages
Annotation
Some experts in Australia favor the use of committals, while others regard the committal as an ineffective means of filtering out weak prosecution cases and as a significant cause of unnecessary delay and expense in the criminal justice system.
Abstract
The authors believe committals play a useful role in the criminal justice system and can be made more effective with some modifications. In support of this view, data are presented from a number of Australian jurisdictions indicating that committals are more effective at filtering out weak cases than critics claim, are a potentially useful forum for the early identification of guilty pleas, provide a reasonably effective mechanism for disclosing the Crown's case to the accused, and perform a useful management function in large or complicated cases. The data show that committals consume substantially less court time than is often assumed and that committals do not constitute a major source of delay in most jurisdictions. It is further argued that, while complaints about the treatment of witnesses at committal hearings have some substance, these criticisms have been overstated and have ignored substantial benefits of properly conducted cross-examinations for both defense and prosecution. 72 notes, 3 tables, and 3 figures