The Civil Legal System - Here the Plaintiff, the person with the claim asks the Judge for something from the defendant. The test is on the balance of probability. The claim is nearly always for money but can also be for some performance (the doing / or not doing of something).

The Judge looks down upon the Plaintiff with two questions:

What do you want? What you want from the Judge is an order from the Judge and what that order is, is defined in the Application and statement of claim. The Judge is asked a question and has to give an answer to that question. It is important to properly define the order(s) sought. They have to be very clear and precise.

Why should I give it to you? Why you should get it requires the law to be applied to the facts. This is covered with a legal submission which summarises the law as it should be applied to the facts, yes you tell the Judge how to suck eggs - how to do his job. The facts are defined in affidavit(s). An affidavit should obey the laws of evidence in that it should be restricted to what the person swearing the affidavit actually witnessed. Where there are documents attached to the Affidavit the documents are not evidence. What is important on the documents needs to be said again in the affidavit to make it evidence. Evidence is that which is sworn or attested to. The documents are only there to support the evidence provided on the Affidavit.
Telling a lie on an affidavit is perjury and the courts place themselves as most important. Perjury is considered to be a crime against the court so the penalty is high, equal to murder.

Trouble is: Judges never do anything about perjury so people get away with telling lies on their affidavits. 

Cheating in courts is done on the evidence. The evidence is where lies are told. 
The Judge interferes with the evidence by refusing to allow one side to present the evidence that will show they should win or should not lose.
Judge deliberately misinterprets the evidence for the benefit of one party. This happens when Judges are corrupt. Often afterwards Legal Aid is lobbied so that there will not be aid given to support an appeal.
Cheating is also done by making applications such as: that the Plaintiff's statement of claim be dismissed as showing no cause of action, or that it is an abuse of process of the court, or it is frivolous and vexatious or ... . This application is supported by an affidavit where it is claimed things like harassment or some improper conduct has been occurring and that this application is a continuation of that improper conduct.
The Plaintiff is caught by surprise without an answer and his application is dismissed with costs against him.
Solicitor for one party is bought in some back room deal. To ensure his party loses he does not put all the evidence into the court and will make it cost his party too much or force a settlement.
Costs may be too high. Solicitors can be unscrupulous and will take advantage of their clients by increasing the costs with unnecessary delay, unnecessary letters, over charging and the like. The remedy becomes unaffordable. 

The Remedy is the Appeals Process.
There are two types of appeals. 
1. A Rehearing of the facts. This means another trial in a higher court. 

2. A Higher Court Judge makes the determination "That with the evidence before him could the lower court Judge reasonably made the decision he made.
The appeal has two elements to it, the facts and the law. 
A Judge can err by giving undue weight to the evidence, or in someway restricting the evidence presented to the court.
A Judge can err in law by not applying the correct law to the facts or not applying the law correctly to the facts.

3. If there is new evidence an application has to be made to the Judge to allow the new evidence and it has to be evidence that was not available at the time of the trial. You cannot call a witness to give evidence if that witness could have been called at the time of the earlier trial.

How they cheat on Appeal
The transcripts can get edited. A record is kept on who gets what transcript. It is important to get in quickly and order the transcript and pay for it as this will minimise interference with the transcript. They say simple things like ..... & obscure in place of the important things.

The Solicitor will ask for some exorbitant fee up front at the last moment and make you abandon the appeal.

If you have Legal Aid, they will be lobbied to deny you legal aid for an appeal.

Criminal Legal System - The Police charge someone, the defendant, with a crime and the defendant then has the job of defending themselves from the charges in a court..

To commit a crime one must do two things: 
1. Something defined by law as a crime. This means there is an Act of Parliament such as the Crimes Act, the Traffic Act, Vagrancy Act etc. where the thing that has been done is defined.

2. Have intended to do the thing. Killing someone is only murder if there is the intention to kill someone, it could have been an accident. If the death occurs from a deliberate act of harm, but there was no intent to kill the person, then the crime is manslaughter. I saw a woman be found not guilty when she was caught by Police doing 90 in a 60 zone and admitted to doing the 90. Her defense was that she had just bought the car, a sports car, and the speedometer was in error by 30km/hr. She had a mechanic give evidence that he had fixed the speedometer. She said she did not realize she was speeding and because it was a new sports car she had expected the sensation of speed so did not notice she was speeding. Her defense was that she did not intend to speed and this defense was accepted as proven by the Magistrate.

Defendants have the right to know the case they have to answer. This is called the brief of evidence. 

Police get innocent people convictions by:-
Fabricating evidence - they can make up the evidence and lie to the court
They can tutor witnesses for the prosecution and teach them the lies they have to tell to the court.
They can improperly or incompletely investigate and in the process lose or not collect the evidence that would show the defendant is not guilty.

Where there is a dispute Police will only look at what will get them a conviction and ignore all the other crimes the defendant suffered. They turn victims into perpetrators when the victim acts irrationally and with desperation from a desperate position.
Solicitors have taken an oath to the court, they are "officers of the court". This means they will not bring the court into disrepute. So if a prosecution witness is lying a Solicitor will not show that witness up for lying as there is the view that this will bring the prosecution and thus the court into disrepute.
Magistrates are biased for the Police. When the Police lie their evidence is considered credible and because what they say is in conflict with the Defendant's evidence the Defendant's evidence is found to lack credibility. A large chunk, (all) of the defendant's evidence is dismissed and then not considered. Thus the Defendant is found guilty.
Magistrates and Judges refuse to allow defense to lead evidence that may mitigate the crime. When they do this they remove evidence of self defense or impairment that could go to the defendant's lack of intent. 

When Police witnesses perjure themselves they are never charged. Police will never prosecute their own witnesses. 

The High Court has made law which states:
"If a prosecution witness is charged with perjury this could cause the courts a problem because when people hear about it they may not willingly come forward to give evidence."

Because of this no perjuring Police witnesses are ever charged with perjury.

The Appeal process is flawed as it is in answer to the Question "With the evidence before him could the Judge / Magistrate have reasonably made his decision". When evidence is with held from the court that proves innocence that evidence is never considered and innocent people are made guilty and punished for crimes they did not commit. 

The Remedy is the Appeals Process.
A Higher Court Judge makes the determination "That with the evidence before him could the lower court Judge reasonably made the decision he made.
The appeal has two elements to it, the facts and the law. 
A Judge can err by giving undue weight to the evidence, or in someway restricting the evidence presented to the court.
A Judge can err in law by not applying the correct law to the facts or not applying the law correctly to the facts.

3. If there is new evidence an application has to be made to the Judge to allow the new evidence and it has to be evidence that was not available at the time of the trial. You cannot call a witness to give evidence if that witness could have been called at the time of the earlier trial. 

How they cheat on your Appeal
The transcripts can get edited. A record is kept on who gets what transcript. It is important to get in quickly and order the transcript and pay for it as this will minimise interference with the transcript. They say simple things like ..... & obscure in place of the important things.

The Solicitor will ask for some exorbitant fee up front at the last moment and make you abandon the appeal.

If you have Legal Aid, they will be lobbied to deny you legal aid for an appeal.

How to fix the legal system:
1. Deal with Police who cheat by sacking them. They bring courts into disrepute.
When it can be clearly shown that a Police Officer has lied to a court he is instantly sacked from the Police Force. Instant dismissal is a must. Once a perjurer always a perjurer.
When a Police Officer has been caught out three times with his witnesses lying to a court he must be instantly sacked from the Police Force. It is the duty of a Police Officer to know his case and to know that his witnesses are telling the truth.

2. Properly investigate any claims made by the defendant in relation to the crimes of others against him or others, that may have led up to his situation.
Often people act defensively and may commit crime in their own self defense. This needs to be considered. People can become distressed, irrational and misguided. When Police take sides and only seek to get a conviction they are being unfair and this needs correction. A proper investigation will require another Police Officer from another section of the Police to be assigned the investigation initiated by the defendant. People can be set up by others and when they lack the resources to properly investigate can go down because of the malice of others.

3. The Court's case manager should collect the evidence and ensure it is complete and manage the file for both the prosecution and defendant. The power of the court needs to be exerted to improve the honesty of the process. The case manager should be able to call on the Court Police to investigate where there might be impropriety.

4. Legislation should have an easy reading summary of the Act placed on the internet with the Act so relevant sections are easy for citizens to find and understand.

5. Include with court forms on the internet examples showing how to present a case with the relevant forms to make it easier for the citizen to be self represented.

6. Judges should be charged with applying the law to the facts. Allowing solicitors to tell the Judge how to do his job is a Judge failing in his duty as a judge. The Judge should know the law and should be able to advise the parties of the Acts and precedence he will rely on to decide the case. We want better from our judges. 

7. Prosecution witnesses who perjure themselves should be dealt with properly. An Act of Parliament is required to introduce this as a crime and over ride the Judge made law. People should not be getting convicted and jailed by malicious witnesses.

8. Limits have to be placed on Judges so they can not so readily exclude evidence that may mitigate the crime. Judges can too readily refuse evidence of self defense. Evidence refused must be detailed so it can be used in an appeal if required by the defendant.

9. Create a court Police service to investigate crimes against the court. Investigate and prosecute cases where the courts could have been used improperly or lied to.

10. Courts are to be open and accountable. Privacy legislation should not apply to courts because it gives an opportunity to cover up miscarriages of justice. transcripts should be published to all to see and the media should not be excluded.

Please blog your inputs and ideas. We really need courts to properly apply the law to an honest and complete set of facts. The Justice system needs improvement.
The worst injustice is the injustice of the courts being added to the injustice suffered by the victims.