1. If there was only a single level court system, there would be no system of appeals, as there would be no higher court to appeal to. The doctrine of precedent would not operate as decisions would not be made in a higher and, therefore, there would be no decisions binding on the single court. This is likely to lead to inconstant and unpredictable decision-making. Both serious and less serious cases would be heard by the single court. This is likely to lead to serious cases causing delays and people waiting for a long time to have less serious cases heard. Courts may struggle to concentrate on the cases they are hearing as the nature of the cases fluctuate. Judges may make mistakes.
2. Time and costs would be reduced as appeals would be discouraged. There could be some flexibility in decision-making. The number of required to administer the court system may be reduced. There would be less confusion about how the court system works (there is only one court that must be attended, rather than having to work out which court has jurisdiction). Less serious cases are likely to be heard by an experienced judge.
3. Victoria’s court hierarchy allows for decisions of lower courts to be reviewed on appeal by a higher court. The court hierarchy also allows for the doctrine of precedent to function effectively. A precedent made by a higher court is binding and must be followed by a lower court in the same hierarchy hearing a case involving similar facts. This allows for consistency in similar cases and also allows for as legal representatives can inform clients about the law is and likely decisions to be made by acourt. Victoria’s court hierarchy allows for specialisation, with the courts developing expertise in their jurisdiction. In addition, the court hierarchy allows for administrative convenience; matters can be allocated to an appropriate court according to the seriousness and complexity of each case. This increases efficiency and reduces the chances that there will be delays in determining cases.