Search results

I still don't understand the logic there. Read the decision: Dietrich v R [1992] HCA 57; (1992) 177 CLR 292 (13 November 1992) - the only constitutions it mentions are American and Canadian. It is an entirely common law based decision, and as I said, it does not give you the right to a lawyer...

Given a choice between moral/civil/etc. rights and legal rights, if it can be considered a legal right, I'd always pick that. In the context, he's in court and he doesn't want to give self-incriminating evidence. Now if he refuses to answer questions, the court doesn't consider whether he was...

It's not English - there's no strict rules on what you can and can't do in an extended response. Obviously you wouldn't want to dot point the whole thing, but if it's a choice between dot-pointing and running out of time to write your points at all, then I'd pick the dot points.

No, the reasons police officers read those rights is because they're legal rights and they are required to read that statement by law (LEPRA). Justice does not aim for predictability, it aims to achieve what is right, which may not be predictable. The rule of law aims to achieve whatever the...

It's certainly 'a constitutional law', but I wouldn't call it an example of 'constitutional law'. If you say that s5 of the Constitution makes it 'constitutional law' then all laws are constitutional law. That's definitely not what the syllabus defines it as. [B] [/COLOR]I've written to the...

LOL :p I've emailed the Board of Studies about it, and I'll post any response I get. I'm 16 presently ;)

The AD Act (NSW) is even more limited than you say - the Local Court only hears offences, i.e. racial vilification, as discrimination in general is civil. But if the answer is HREOC, then we can just say that HREOC no longer exists as 'HREOC' since it was renamed the Australian Human Rights...

I was thinking along the lines of peace rights being a category of collective rights rather than a single right, but I would've chosen self-determination anyway since that's the really obvious one.

I know they say it's a 45 minute section, but that doesn't mean you actually have to use that time when you could spend it making awesome essays.

It doesn't say that they were.

If you write 5 pages for 10 marks, you're wasting your time, and you're a crazily fast writer...

They're not absolutely necessary, but I'd say there's something wrong with you if you think the laws don't need reforming. My essays were focused on reforms.

But the Local Court isn't a court of general civil jurisdiction. The Local Court Act 2007 (NSW) only confers civil jurisdiction for a few types of claims, and discrimination isn't one of them, from what I can see, unless Commonwealth law confers it. I'm still guessing I'm wrong somewhere in my...

You take your multiple choice section out of the exam, and possibly mark on it the ones you chose?

Come to think of it, if they did say the answer was D, we can challenge it since it has been renamed the Australian Human Rights Commission by law.

+1. The only other possible option is tort law, and that's only if the trainers actually breach the rule, in which case they commit the tort of trespass. In the question, no wrong has actually been committed, it's asking what type of law gives them the authority to make the rule in the first place.

The only past HSC question I remember about this said 'the Australian courts', not 'the Local Court' specifically. If s44 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) acts to confer jurisdiction on the Local Court, then Local Court would be correct - judging by the inclusion of HREOC/AHRC rather...

I'm not talking about duty of care. Duty of care is completely independent of property law, really. I'm talking about the right of, say, a shopping centre to give people banning notices - it's property law.

Overriding is changing.

It might be HREOC :( I don't see a conferral of jurisdiction under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977. I suppose it could be under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), which does confer some jurisdiction on State courts, but I need to find a reference for that.