Building Trust and Confidence in the Criminal Justice System

  • Asher Flynn
  • Arie Freiberg
Part of the Palgrave Socio-Legal Studies book series (PSLS)


The criminal justice system aspires to be open, transparent and accountable to the public. Indeed, the courts and the key organisations involved in the criminal justice system in Victoria—including Victoria Police, Victoria Legal Aid and the Office of Public Prosecutions—all recognise that transparency, integrity and accountability are key goals. Accordingly, it might be asked how these values fit with a system that so frequently embraces plea negotiations. This chapter discusses this question and considers how public confidence in the criminal justice system can be developed and maintained. This includes proposing two recommendations for ways to improve understandings of plea negotiations.


Transparency Justice Plea negotiations Public confidence Accountability Plea bargaining Criminal justice system 



  1. Barry, J 2017, ‘Prosecutors – should we trust them? A cross-jurisdictional analysis of the effectiveness and transparency of limits on prosecutorial discretion during plea bargaining’, Te Wharenga – New Zealand Criminal Law Review, vol. 152–313, pp. 154–179.Google Scholar
  2. Cohen, S & Doob, A 1989, ‘Public attitudes to plea bargaining’, Criminal Law Quarterly, vol. 32, pp. 85–109.Google Scholar
  3. Flynn, A 2012, ‘Bargaining with justice: victims, plea bargaining and the Victims’ Charter Act 2006 (Vic)’, Monash University Law Review, vol. 37, no. 3, pp. 73–96.Google Scholar
  4. Freiberg, A 2003, ‘The four pillars of justice: a review essay’, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 223–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Lovegrove, A 2007, ‘Public opinion, sentencing and lenience: an empirical study involving judges consulting the community’, Criminal Law Review, pp. 769–81.Google Scholar
  6. McConville, M & Marsh, L 2014, Criminal judges: legitimacy, courts and state-induced guilty pleas in Britain, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Office of Public Prosecutions Victoria [OPP] 2016, Our vision and values. Available from: [accessed 18 January 2016].
  8. Supreme Court of Victoria 2015, 2013–2014 annual report. Available from: [accessed 18 January 2016].
  9. Victoria Legal Aid [VLA] 2016b, Our vision, purpose and values. Available from: [accessed 18 January 2016].
  10. Victorian Sentencing Advisory Council [SAC] 2006, Myths and misconceptions: public opinion versus public judgement about sentencing research paper, SAC. Available from: [accessed 18 January 2016].
  11. Warner, K, Davis, J, Spiranovic, C & Freiberg, A 2016, ‘Measuring jurors’ views on sentencing: Results from the second Australian jury sentencing study’ Punishment and Society, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 180–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Warner, K, Davis, J, Walter, M, Bradfield, R & Vermey, R 2011, ‘Public judgement on sentencing: final results from the Tasmanian jury sentencing study’, Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, no. 407, Australian Institute of Criminology, Canberra.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Asher Flynn
    • 1
  • Arie Freiberg
    • 1
  1. 1.Monash UniversityClaytonAustralia

Personalised recommendations