Case About Anthony Tan

Concise Summary of Case – Anthony Tan was one of the most wanted men as he was allegedly charged for murder of Bosnian refugee and Rebels bikie, Edin “Boz” Smajovic. After 2 years building an export business in Vietnam, he read a media report from NSW, describing him as one of the state’s most wanted men. He was unaware for 2 years of the police hunt for him. He immediately got on the phone, first his lawyer, then to an airline. He was more than willing to return to Australia to fight his allegations.

In the end he was arrested and charged for the murder and held on remand in prison for over a year. When he granted bail in August, his trial was to start that same week. Both Anthony Tan and co-accused Nathan Keith Reddy and taken to court. Once the case reached the Supreme Court, the case was dismissed even before the trial had started. This was because, it was understood that the case failed partly due to an alleged confession from a prosecution witness. Jurisdictions of all courts involved –

The two courts involved in this case were the Central Local Court and the Supreme Court. The jurisdictions for the local court include the majority of criminal, summary prosecutions in NSW and with civil matters up to $100,000. It also conducts committal proceedings to determine whether or not indictable offences are to be committed to the District and Supreme Court. Meanwhile the jurisdictions for the Supreme Court has unlimited civil jurisdictions and handles claims of more than $750,000. It also deals with the most serious criminal matters, including murder and treason.

The initial court for this case (Central Local Court) had refused bail, but when it reached the Supreme Court, the case was dismissed even before the trail had even started. Area of law – The Anthony Tan case was a public, criminal case, as Anthony allegedly broke the criminal law, which is part of the public law (also known as the Common law). The standard of proof is the amount of evidence which a plaintiff or prosecuting attorney, in a criminal case, must be presented in a trial in order to win.

As for a civil case the standard of proof is generally that the plaintiff must prove this case by majority (51%) of the evidence. The standard of proof for this case was it was beyond reasonable doubt. The standard of proof needed for a criminal case is that there must be no reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime in order to convict the defendant. The standard of proof in this criminal case, which resulted in the freedom of Mr. Tan, was an alleged confession from a prosecution witness, which led to the case to fail.

Was a jury used? Why or why not? – A jury is usually used in the Supreme Court, but the Supreme Court judge had dismissed the case on technical terms, therefore a jury was not needed. It was an interesting case due to the fact that Tan was innocent yet held in jail for more than 1 year. This had a major impact on Anthony Tan’s life, reputation and his future. For a case that would of continued in the Supreme Court, a jury would have been selected, but due to the fact that the case was dismissed, a jury was not needed.

Is a jury effective? – A jury is a group of citizens (usually of 12) who hears the testimony in legal disputes and determines what they believe is the truth. The word jury is derived from the French word jurer, which means, “to swear an oath. ” The jury has generally been successful because their peers judge the accused and the public plays a role in the criminal justice system, as they make the community feel as though they have a voice in situations that concern society at large.

The jury is there to represent a cross-section of society and they provide a range of perceptions. Also the responsibility for the verdict is spread across 12 jurors and the system acts as a safety net against corrupt and oppressive conduct by state and/or police force. The jury is also carefully selected to avoid bias, prejudice, racist, sexist or any other form of discrimination, which can influence the verdict. Also the defense council can remove a juror, if they feel uncomfortable with them being in the jury.