Multiple Choice (1 Viewer)

[shannan94]

Does anyone know the actual answer to Q4 ?

D - Precedent

 

[Dabzz]

Yes. Pleaasseee!

 

[teganjoyy]

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.

I got a similar ratify/enact question wrong on a past paper and went to my teacher about why it was wrong. She said that ratifying a treaty, even though I thought it was exactly the same as enacting, is a promise to enact. You sign the treaty, then ratify it, then put it into domestic legislation (enact). The definition for ratify in my dictionary is 'sign or give formal consent to (a treaty, contract, or agreement), making it officially valid.' It hasn't been put into domestic legislation when it has been ratified. Ratifying is therefore not the most correct answer.

 

[rabbitohs123]

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

yay, thanks !

 

[saints123]

for that ratify question it was in last years specimen paper and the answer was codify which can be substituted for the word enacted therefore the answer was enacted

 

[NickGero]

The highest court of appeal is ultimately the High Court, which has a criminal jurisdiction, but the question is ambiguous; does it mean the next court it can appeal to or what will ultimately be the highest court it can appeal to?

I said High Court. Fingers crossed.

This exactly ^

The question was ridiculously poorly worded. I said the Supreme Court, because it was my understanding one could only appeal to High Court from Supreme Court or Court of Criminal Appeal and from the District Court, I thought you can only appeal to the Supreme Court (but apparently it would be Court of Criminal Appeal) because you can't just skip steps in the hierarchy...

 

[NickGero]

"The highest court that COULD hear an appeal against the conviction"
As the highest court in the lands, the High Court is that court. Sure, the appeal would go to the Court of Criminal Appeals first, but if that got rejected, the high court would eventually hear the appeal, making it, in the end, the highest possible avenue of appeal against the conviction if all else fails. Therefore, it is the High Court.

Yes but "against the conviction" implies where you would appeal THAT conviction to...

But again, this question appears a product of dodgy writing, which is kind of ridiculous considering they have the whole bloody year to set the test.

 

[cosmomatthews]

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

doesn't ratified mean 'a law being passed' though?

 

[Brendonnelly]

My understanding of ratify was that it enshrines a treaty into legislation/law. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think you can use the dictionary definition here- we need a more legally based definition.

 

[NickGero]

No ratify is basically rubber stamping it and so your country has officially bound themselves to act in the spirit of the document/ covenant etc.

 

[iPhone4]

I don't understand 13. I thought it was C?
:/