Criminal Law Take Home Exam (1 Viewer)

[iwannarock]

yeah u dont have to get rid of the possession section

i have a possession section. its needed to prove supply.

possession is in the definition of supply. so i got possession out of the way first and moved on to supply

 

[scarecrow_of_oz]

yes. yes! BRILLIANT hahahhahahhehehe
i've had WAY too much caffine

 

[iwannarock]

I get confused on that bit - the book seems to randomly spit out a 'traffickable quantities' section on p.1137 but i don't know how to reference it or where it comes from. then it says the current amounts are in sch1 of the DMT(amendment)A (the amounts and penalties for this are on p.1139). i don't know which one to use either.
and for better or for worse, i am keeping my possession section!! and i will use it as a reference for my supply section. rah ongoing supply - is that relevant here? some people seem to think it is, some don't.
on the 'search front' i'm still searching - i'm fair sure the search was illegal but the books not very forthcoming about it

trafickable quantity for amphetamine is 3 g and above. 55g, so its a "deemed supply" meaning indictable yada yada yada.

 

[scarecrow_of_oz]

but where is that table from?

 

[iwannarock]

i think they made that table from the provisions act. but i don't think the actual table is in the act.

i just referenced the act, didn't pinpoint an exact section. nobody's perfect. hopefully they'll let it slip.

 

[iwannarock]

i'm still confused with the procedural issues.

so they held her over 4 hours. now what?

i think i'm missing a bunch of procedural things to talk about here.

 

[Skittled]

Its mj, but I'm too darn lazy to sign myself in on Steve's computer.

I'm referencing the page in the text for the quantities.

Umm.... and after the 4 hour thing, well there is a whole heap of things you can discuss, but they are all really interrelated so it gets a bit ugly and clumped. Like, you discuss the fact that they held her over the 4 hours (and therefore confession inadmissible), and... talk about Williams: like the fact that they ruled that police cannot hold people for the sole purpose of questioning, but then the act changed it (hence an argument for the police)...

Actually, thinking about it, it is pretty limited... just crap on a lot!

 

[iwannarock]

Its mj, but I'm too darn lazy to sign myself in on Steve's computer.

I'm referencing the page in the text for the quantities.

Umm.... and after the 4 hour thing, well there is a whole heap of things you can discuss, but they are all really interrelated so it gets a bit ugly and clumped. Like, you discuss the fact that they held her over the 4 hours (and therefore confession inadmissible), and... talk about Williams: like the fact that they ruled that police cannot hold people for the sole purpose of questioning, but then the act changed it (hence an argument for the police)...

Actually, thinking about it, it is pretty limited... just crap on a lot!

hmmmm on the page where the williams case is on my blue book it has in big writing that i must have wrote: "Been overuled". so i guess that must be to do with this act you speak of.

so i thought it would make the confession inadmissable. but then isnt there a whole deal with the evidentiary laws that make the confession inadmissable too? its like a double wammy.

 

[MaryJane]

Yeah, it is a double hit of inadmissibility. Basically, it seems like the police wont be able to escape the fact they were dodgy about nearly everything, but it all depends on judicial discretion (hate it!).

The crimes act overwrote it.. I think its around s 352, ro s 356 or something. There are a whole list of them, which range seriously from A to V or something crazy so you'll be able to find it. Not quite sure off the top of my head.

 

[scarecrow_of_oz]

night guys i'm going to take myself off to bed and get up early to do this
hope it gets done... still under the 1000 word mark...

 

[iwannarock]

gnite. good luck 2morow.

im gonna work through the night.

i'll probably finish at around 6am. then looooooong sleep.

 

[iwannarock]

i just finished.

cool i've never finished this early before.

my essay was so stock standard.

time to go get some maccas. i deserve some unhealthy early morning snacks.

good luck. the BOS law trio will pull through again i'm sure

 

[MaryJane]

Congrats honey, hope you enjoyed your Maccas!

I'm nearly finished mine, just doing a few more re-reads over it and trying to cut out the crap - only 55 more words to cut!! I have to hand it in at 3, so I lose 2 hours which is a bit crap, but its my own fault.

Sigh, back to law... Still trying to find fraud legislation... I wonder if we could reference Anne's lecture?

 

[scarecrow_of_oz]

i don't think u can
p.1136 says they'd get done for an offence of dishonesty under s179 of the crimes act
damn u guys and ur done essays!
i'm up to 1200
oh dear, a while to go yet

 

[scarecrow_of_oz]

i'm having trouble expanding my procedure section - its only 400 words. i've mentioned williams, and crapped on about how they shouldn't have interviewed her for more than 4 hours. i've talked about the arrest. what else is there?!

 

[MaryJane]

Thats all I've wrote about too: Williams and the 4 hour thing. I couldnt think of anything else for that part. I dont think my essay is weighted correctly (as in the %ages) but oh well!

 

[scarecrow_of_oz]

yay you're still online
i was worried u and iwr had run off to party since u've both pretty much finished

 

[MaryJane]

haha, no, no still here. Just editing my essay v. slowly while procrastinating on the internet!

 

[scarecrow_of_oz]

fun! did u end up mentioning dishonest acquisition? i still haven't gotten around to including that yet... i proabably will tho - i need the words!

 

[MaryJane]

I said that the police could alternatively charge her under s. 180 of the crimes act, but thats literally it.

Are you counting your footnotes in your word count? Just dont want you to get a nasty surprise