Section I: Multiple Choice (1 Viewer)

[OzKo]

Share your responses here.

 

[edwardf316]

Tougher than it usually is but i think i did pretty well overall

 

[Sinyeta]

Really easy MC.

 

[Costad3]

very easy mc

 

[richardtherpg]

Not sue about my answers but I got:
1. D
2. B
3. C
4. C
5. B
6. A
7. C
8. B
9. A
10. B
11. A
12. C
13. C
14. D
15. B
16. B
17. D
18. C
19. D
20. C

 

[Fieryloks]

Somebody please upload the Legal Studies exam

 

[edwardf316]

Not sue about my answers but I got:
1. D
2. B
3. C
4. C
5. B
6. A
7. C
8. B
9. A C
10. B C
11. A
12. C A
13. C
14. D
15. B
16. B
17. D
18. C
19. D
20. C D I don't think its D just because i don't think as HSC students where in any position to make a judgement about the length of the sentence but i'm not 100% about it

.

 

[Cleverusername5321]

.

Oh, go away. That would be downright discriminatory. I read the Crimes Act.

24 Manslaughter—punishment
Whosoever commits the crime of manslaughter shall be liable to imprisonment for 25 years: Provided that, in any case, if the Judge is of the opinion that, having regard to all the circumstances, a nominal punishment would be sufficient, the Judge may discharge the jury from giving any verdict, and such discharge shall operate as an acquittal.

Also, why the hell would they appeal about a jury not being used? A jury isn't used when they are prejudiced against a certain matter, and this only helps the prosecution if anything. They want to win, after all.

Also, I'm pretty sure that in the HSC we are specifically taught that the prosecution appeals when the sentence is "manifestly inadequate" and/or when a judge has erred in a decision.

HOLY FUCK HOW DO I KNOW SO MUCH ABOUT LEGAL STUDIES, I'M NOT EVEN GOOD.

 

[SuchSmallHands]

.

Nah, 20 is definitely C. You can have a case without a jury it's fine. 3 years for killing someone if you have prior convictions won't be accepted by the DPP. 10 is B as well. 18 is B I think, she's 12, doli incapax is only provisional for 10-14, she can be convicted at 12. It's definitely not C or D.

 

[edwardf316]

Oh, go away. That would be downright discriminatory. I read the Crimes Act.

24 Manslaughter—punishment
Whosoever commits the crime of manslaughter shall be liable to imprisonment for 25 years: Provided that, in any case, if the Judge is of the opinion that, having regard to all the circumstances, a nominal punishment would be sufficient, the Judge may discharge the jury from giving any verdict, and such discharge shall operate as an acquittal.

Also, why the hell would they appeal about a jury not being used? A jury isn't used when they are prejudiced against a certain matter, and this only helps the prosecution if anything. They want to win, after all.

Also, I'm pretty sure that in the HSC we are specifically taught that the prosecution appeals when the sentence is "manifestly inadequate" and/or when a judge has erred in a decision.

HOLY FUCK HOW DO I KNOW SO MUCH ABOUT LEGAL STUDIES, I'M NOT EVEN GOOD.

For one i would assume her "limited ability to understand events" would significantly lower the sentence. Also Murder is an indictable offence and therefore would have to be heard before a jury.

Nah, 20 is definitely C. You can have a case without a jury it's fine. 3 years for killing someone if you have prior convictions won't be accepted by the DPP. 10 is B as well. 18 is B I think, she's 12, doli incapax is only provisional for 10-14, she can be convicted at 12. It's definitely not C or D.

Murder can only be heard in the Supreme Court, so its C. And 18 is is definitely C. For starters she can't be tried in the Local Court because she's 12, it would have to be in the Children's Court and between the age of 10-14 doli incapax is a rebuttable presumption. So although its presumed she is incapable of wrong it can be overturned, if its under 10 then you cannot be charged in any circumstance. Read the answer, it says "She is presumed to be incapable of committing the offence", so if she was to be convicted the prosecution would have to prove she committed the offence knowing the consequences.

 

[Cleverusername5321]

For one i would assume her "limited ability to understand events" would significantly lower the sentence. Also Murder is an indictable offence and therefore would have to be heard before a jury.



Murder can only be heard in the Supreme Court, so its C. And 18 is is definitely C. For starters she can't be tried in the Local Court because she's 12, it would have to be in the Children's Court and between the age of 10-14 doli incapax is a rebuttable presumption. So although its presumed she is incapable of wrong it can be overturned, if its under 10 then you cannot be charged in any circumstance. Read the answer, it says "She is presumed to be incapable of committing the offence".

Her inability to understand events lowers her charge from murder to manslaughter. 10 is B, a committal hearing has to be heard first in the local court. The question is asking "which court will be the first to hear the charge against Peter?". Agree with question 18.

 

[SuchSmallHands]

Okay, I don't want to fight, but I'll justify my answers. It's the first court, so that's always local for the prima facie case establishment. You're right about the children's one though, I read that option as she is incapable of committing the offence, missed the presumption.

 

[SuchSmallHands]

Her inability to understand events lowers her charge from murder to manslaughter. 10 is B, a committal hearing has to be heard first in the local court. The question is asking "which court will be the first to hear the charge against Peter?". Agree with question 18.

Yeah, basically that ^^

 

[SL97]

But I thought can't have a judge-only trial for murder in a District Court, but they didn't say which court it was so.. And 3 years for killing someone with prior convictions isn't that ridiculous considering her partial defence of having a substantially impaired mind

 

[SuchSmallHands]

But I thought can't have a judge-only trial for murder in a District Court, but they didn't say which court it was so.. And 3 years for killing someone with prior convictions isn't that ridiculous considering her partial defence of having a substantially impaired mind

Nope, previous serious convictions and manslaughter. A definite danger to society. The biggest recent murder trial in the country (R v Gittany) was judge only, there's no issue there, happens regularly. C is the only plausible option.

 

[Cleverusername5321]

Guys, I got question 7 wrong.

 

[SuchSmallHands]

Guys, I got question 7 wrong.

It's okay! I got a silly one wrong too I think everyone will have one that they could have gotten but just did something silly on xx

 

[edwardf316]

Her inability to understand events lowers her charge from murder to manslaughter. 10 is B, a committal hearing has to be heard first in the local court. The question is asking "which court will be the first to hear the charge against Peter?". Agree with question 18.

I'm not 100% sure but i was under the impression manslaughter is still an indictable offence

 

[SL97]

Nope, previous serious convictions and manslaughter. A definite danger to society. The biggest recent murder trial in the country (R v Gittany) was judge only, there's no issue there, happens regularly. C is the only plausible option.

 

[SuchSmallHands]

I'm not 100% sure but i was under the impression manslaughter is still an indictable offence

Every single indictable offence goes through local court to establish a prima facie case. The FIRST court is always local, didn't you do committal hearings?