Multiple Choice (3 Viewers)

[inJust]

The Appeals question was wrong to start with. Drug Trafficking is prosecuted in the Supreme Court not the District Court. I said Court of Criminal appeals as she was appealing conviction, and that is the jursidiction of the Court of Criminal Appeal.
Here are my answers my teacher thinks I got 19/20 but you be the judge,
1)D
2)B
3)A
4)D
5)B
6)D
7)D
8)C
9)A
10)B
11)C
12)C
13)Ambigious however I said D, could have been B
14)A
15)A
16)D
17)C
18)Odd, I said A, isnt there a law that minors cant buy spray paint. D I wasn't too sure with as you could just be transporting the Spray paint, and a strict liability offence requires only the proving of Actus Reus, and I don't see no guilty act in that
19) I Said D but somebody argued B and I like their thinking
20)C

14

13 is d.
But I pretty much had what you had hahaha

 

[shannan94]

The Appeals question was wrong to start with. Drug Trafficking is prosecuted in the Supreme Court not the District Court. I said Court of Criminal appeals as she was appealing conviction, and that is the jursidiction of the Court of Criminal Appeal.

The high court also has jurisdiction to hear appeals of conviction, the supreme court of appeal has the jurisdiction to hear both appeals on sentence and conviction.

 

[venerable]

The Appeals question was wrong to start with. Drug Trafficking is prosecuted in the Supreme Court not the District Court. I said Court of Criminal appeals as she was appealing conviction, and that is the jursidiction of the Court of Criminal Appeal.
Here are my answers my teacher thinks I got 19/20 but you be the judge,
1)D
2)B
3)A
4)D
5)B
6)D
7)D
8)C
9)A
10)B
11)C
12)C
13)Ambigious however I said D, could have been B
14)A
15)A
16)D
17)C
18)Odd, I said A, isnt there a law that minors cant buy spray paint. D I wasn't too sure with as you could just be transporting the Spray paint, and a strict liability offence requires only the proving of Actus Reus, and I don't see no guilty act in that
19) I Said D but somebody argued B and I like their thinking
20)C

14

18 is D - it's the seller's responsibility to ensure that the person purchasing the spray can isn't underage. If you have a look at part 8B of the graffiti control act 2008, it states "A person under the age of 18 years who is in possession of a spray paint can in a public place is guilty of an offence."

 

[Washy_182]

I believe 19 to be B. Australia is a dualist system, which means that by ratifying a treaty, it has to be incorporated into Australian law through further steps such as enacting legislation. This is opposed to a monist system such as France, who will be bound by the treaty simply by ratifying.

 

[Keelan134]

18 is D - it's the seller's responsibility to ensure that the person purchasing the spray can isn't underage. If you have a look at part 8B of the graffiti control act 2008, it states "A person under the age of 18 years who is in possession of a spray paint can in a public place is guilty of an offence."

I knew I should have studied the Graffiti control Act. DAMMIT

 

[Keelan134]

I believe 19 to be B. Australia is a dualist system, which means that by ratifying a treaty, it has to be incorporated into Australian law through further steps such as enacting legislation. This is opposed to a monist system such as France, who will be bound by the treaty simply by ratifying.

Monist countries are ones that upon signing the treaty already becomes legislation, and In the Netherlands, any international law does not need to be signed and can overpower the constitution (The Dutch have a lot of faith in the UN). Ratification is the implementation of legislation into domestic law. Enact and Ratify are vague to me. I remember a MC fromt he 2008 paper saying something like, When does an international treaty become law (along those lines) and the two final answers were ratify and enact from memory and I think they took enact. So yeah silly me not remembering that. For anyone interested I think it was the 2008 paper if youre bothered to look it up

 

[Zenox]

Hahahahaha, you make me laugh. Thanks for selectively quoting the armstrong legal website.

Shame in your limited legal knowledge you have missed the fact that section 73 of the constitution provides the High Court with appellate jurisdiction where special leave is granted. Therefore the highest court you are able to appeal to is the high court.

Your just an incompetent being who fails to realize your arrogance has played a pivotal role in your demise. Maybe i am wrong, but the point is i was just qouting and providing evidence that D could be the possible answer.

Edit: I apologize in advance for busting a nut

 

[jayq94]

Regarding 19, if you ratify an international document you sign it. If you enact it you make it relevant to domestic legislation.

 

[HKspec009]

But a series of questions can also include name, age details to which they have to answer if im not mistaken

 

[Keelan134]

Regarding 19, if you ratify an international document you sign it. If you enact it you make it relevant to domestic legislation.

MHHHMM, we were always taught signing=signing
ratify = put in domestic law but yeah i went on google definitions and yeah its says
Sign or give formal consent to (a treaty, contract, or agreement), making it officially valid.
So i think I might swing to more the signing side. 1 Mark chums, heads up

 

[Myans]

Cesan v The Queen 2008

Momcilovic v The Queen 2011

Two High Court cases where a Drug Trafficking conviction was appealed

 

[Anonym0us]

Can anyone confirm the answer for 16 ?
I was stuck between C and D.. because C-they can't go to the police station WITHOUT being arrested.. so C seems most correct

 

[Nooblet94]

Regarding q19, ratified is totally wrong.

I got 17/20 though - moderately happy I guess.

 

[inJust]

Don't worry, I got 16....

 

[mitchellwright8]

ratified doesnt ensure that Australian law is protected, it would be better protected if it was enacted or a law was passed.

Might wanna look up the definition of ratified. Ratifying is enacting an international instrument into domestic law, so given the question, the MOST CORRECT answer is D.

 

[mitchellwright8]

Is that wording wrong though?

Isn't it to establish the STATE of the CASE? not the states case?

Weird af

The STATE is the prosecution, ie one of the two parties in the criminal case, so the state's case is correct.

 

[mitchellwright8]

For question 15, "an accused is considered innocent until proven guilty. Which of the following best reflects this principle?"
I put remand
if that's wrong can someone explain why??

Remand is where you keep someone in jail before they have even been found guilty in a court, ie you are NOT assuming they are innocent.

 

[vegan1]

Might wanna look up the definition of ratified. Ratifying is enacting an international instrument into domestic law, so given the question, the MOST CORRECT answer is D.

you're wrong...best protection means enforcement. in Australia ratifying a treaty/convention DOES NOT make it automatically enforceable. You need to enact it into domestic law. we got that question in our trials, and the answer is B.

 

[wavess]

Does anyone know the actual answer to Q4 ?

 

[shannan94]

Your just an incompetent being who fails to realize your arrogance has played a pivotal role in your demise.

My demise... Considering I don't have a hissy fit and continue with bigoted ramblings when i'm proven wrong. Ad hominem isn't going to cut it here sorry.

Cesan v The Queen 2008

Momcilovic v The Queen 2011

Two High Court cases where a Drug Trafficking conviction was appealed

Finally, somebody with some Legal aptitude. You sir have won my respect.