Well, with Donoghue v Stevenson, thats more a case you that you would use like legislation, as it shows a very important point of law. However, with some other cases, you use them as examples to support your argument.
-
Want to help us with this year's BoS Trials? Let us know before 30 June. See this thread for details -
Looking for HSC notes and resources? Check out our Notes & Resources page
Please rate my answer for Legal Studies? (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter Phoebe 123
- Start date
Phoebe 123
Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2011
- Messages
- 96
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2011
Ok, for example
"The point of negligence by the law to address the issue of child abuse is clearly demonstrated in the case of So and So vs. So and So (1994). In this case, So and so filed an complaint to police after So and So's child had been abused by her husband So and So. There were several complaints made, but police did not follow this complaint up and put it on the back seat. This case is just one of the few that demonstrates the problem with law enforcement agencies and how it needs to be improved in this area.
Btw, I just put "So and So" because I could not think of a name. I would never, ever do that in a test.
"The point of negligence by the law to address the issue of child abuse is clearly demonstrated in the case of So and So vs. So and So (1994). In this case, So and so filed an complaint to police after So and So's child had been abused by her husband So and So. There were several complaints made, but police did not follow this complaint up and put it on the back seat. This case is just one of the few that demonstrates the problem with law enforcement agencies and how it needs to be improved in this area.
Btw, I just put "So and So" because I could not think of a name. I would never, ever do that in a test.
Last edited:
Thats how it should be done. Just show a consquence, like "After several months, the women and her child were viciously attacked by their father"
Phoebe 123
Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2011
- Messages
- 96
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2011
Or you could also say, like
In a failure of the law to enforce maximum security for criminals who committed a sordid crime is demonstrated in this case of So and So vs. So and So (2000). Here, an sexual child molester easily escaped due to limited security and devastated the lives of many other children after his ecapism.
In a failure of the law to enforce maximum security for criminals who committed a sordid crime is demonstrated in this case of So and So vs. So and So (2000). Here, an sexual child molester easily escaped due to limited security and devastated the lives of many other children after his ecapism.
Thats right as well. Just dont make it so emotive (ie. destroyed many lives). Just say, after his escape, so and so commited several more violent rapes before being recaptured by the police.
Phoebe 123
Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2011
- Messages
- 96
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2011
Yup. Btw, which two options did you last year?
I did family law and workplace.
Phoebe 123
Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2011
- Messages
- 96
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2011
I can tell you one thing; I hope to god I don't do world Order. I find that the hardest of them all. How did your teacher decide which to do? Did he/she take a vote out of the class?
The school has always been doing workplace and family, so it was already decided. However, in modern, we got to chose between WW2 and israel (WW2 won by an overwhelming margin). World order is a subject you want to avoid, it is really difficult and there is not that much information on it, or so I have heard. You can however, study an option topic on your own with permission from your teachers. I got my modern teachers permission to do WW2 on my own, but since the class chose it, our agreement was redundant.
Phoebe 123
Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2011
- Messages
- 96
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2011
Thank you. I am glad I am not the only one who thought world order was so hard. Reading stuff about it makes me think I am reading another language or something.
So, how does it go? Crime Term 1, Human Rights Term 2, Option 1 Term 3 and Option 2 Term 4?
So, how does it go? Crime Term 1, Human Rights Term 2, Option 1 Term 3 and Option 2 Term 4?
Depends on the school. We did crime first, then option 1, option 2 then last we did human rights/law and society. World order is annoying because international law is extremely complicated, unlike domestic areas of law like workplace, consumer, family law etc.
Phoebe 123
Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2011
- Messages
- 96
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2011
Ok, just to confirm, Law and Society is no longer on the syllabus, correct? They replaced it with Human Rights?
Yeh, law and society is no longer on the syllabus.
Phoebe 123
Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2011
- Messages
- 96
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2011
Hey, is "civil disobedience" in the crime section? Cause I came across an question in an excercise book of Yr 12 Legal Studies Book. It's this one
http://www.pascalpress.com.au/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=9781741253535
I can't find it as an dotpoint in the syllabus, and if that's the case it shouldn't be tested. You can look inside that book from the comp.
http://www.pascalpress.com.au/ProductDetails.asp?ProductCode=9781741253535
I can't find it as an dotpoint in the syllabus, and if that's the case it shouldn't be tested. You can look inside that book from the comp.
I dont think civil disobedience is in the current syllabus so dont worry about it.
Phoebe 123
Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2011
- Messages
- 96
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2011
Please mark this essay I just made "Assess the role of the each of the key court personnel, and the extent to which they contribute to the effective functioning of the court system." Out of 15.
The key court personnel in the criminal justice system are the judge/magistrate, the jury, police, defense, and the prosecutor. All of these have certain powers/discretion and key roles that contribute to the effectiveness, functioning and access of the legal system. Their importance is of all equal value, they all have very different roles which can be seen through all types of different cases, legislation and issues in the criminal justice system.
A judge/magistrate main role is to take charge of all formal court proceedings, to ask the jury to deliver the verdict, and to ask for order in the court if there is an outburst from any party present in the courtroom. A magistrate only takes over matters in the Local Court. The judge takes over matters in the District Court, The Supreme Court and the High Court. They also have discretion to look at and decide if the arguments and evidence given from both the prosecutor and the defense is worthwhile considering. Once the jury delivers a guilty verdict, the judge has discretion to decide the length of a sentence imposed. The Crimes Act 1999 restricts them when imposing the length of a sentence for certain serious indictable offenses. The judge also can interpret statute laws, by applying common law. They have the responsibility to follow the doctrine of precedent to look for similar cases and their rulings to decide what to follow. This supports the notion that “all cases must be treated equally.”
Judge’s guidance, orders and opinions are highly needed for a cooperative function of the legal system. The judge guides all other parties in the courtroom. Their guidance is what will lead to the final decision; they influence the jury, the prosecutor and the defense, etc. This is why it is extremely important that they disclose their bias if they are listening to their relatives case, or anyone they discriminate against. Their significance of the influence and decision is clearly drawn and seen from the Donoghue vs. Stevenson case (1932). This case was significant in that the judge ruled and accepted the notion of negligence and it introduced the new principle that manufacturers owed a duty of care to their consumers they sell their goods and services too. This includes all kinds of services including primary, tertiary and secondary. Another significant is the Mabo vs. Queensland (1992) case. This case was significant in that the judge ruled that on behalf of Australia’s common law, agreed to acknowledge Aboriginal people their land belonged to them, and overcame the idea of “terra nullius” meaning land belonging to no one. This released the Native Title Act (1993) that acknowledged that piece of land.
However, judges always don’t have the purest of intentions. On 22nd September 2002 the Sydney Morning Herald released a newspaper article defaming a well known and respected judge within NSW reporting that this particular judge had been exposed to listening to a case involving his brother, and mislead the prosecutor, lawyer and most importantly, the jury which lead to a harsh and unjust outcome of the case. This was in the case of R vs. Jackson (2004). In this case, Jackson was accused of viciously murdering his three kids and wife. The prosecutor brought up strong linking and convincing evidence which undeniably proved the prosecutor’s case, however when brought up to the judge, it was dismissed on the basis that “it wasn’t reliable” enough, so therefore wasn’t for the jury to consider, although it was valuable evidence.
Another key court personnel valuable for the criminal justice system is the jury. The jury’s decisions are the most important, as what they decide seals the outcome of the case. They do not determine the sentence, but do they determine if there will actually be a sentencing hearing. But it is argued amongst society if they should start picks jurors for their knowledge and expertise of the legal system. Because they are just randomly picked from the community, it is controversial that they are risking a miscarriage of justice. The jury’s main role is to deliver the verdict to seal the fate off the defendant. If there is no jury, their role goes to the judge. This is often in a civil law system based on an inquisitorial system where the judge has to investigate and find evidence. In our common law system, 12 jurors is the amount required in a criminal case. In a civil law case, only 6 reside. The jury’s significance to an effective functioning of the process is undeniably seen in the case of R vs. Ramirez (1952), the significance of this case was that it raised discussion and questions about the role of the jury. In a serious manslaughter matter, the jury had a lapse in judgment as they did not view the defense’s argument carefully; this resulted in a man being wrongly convicted to 15 years of child molestation. Years after his release, the judge looked at this case through this precedent, revisiting all the arguments of the prosecution and the defense, realizing a mistake had been made. Right at that moment, a newspaper article was published from the Sunday Herald called “Controversial role of the jury – or not?” It detailed all the facts and details of the Ramirez case and raised discussion and questions within the community, and controversy of our common law system as a whole.
Finally, the police. The main police powers are listed in the Law Enforcements Act 2002 and the Bail Act 1978 NSW. These include the power to arrest, the power to issue cautions, warning and fines in relation to minor offenses, the power to stop a vehicle if they have reason to think that they are any illegal weapons being carried, the power to search premises and issue warrants. Police have discretion in many areas; including whether to decide on whether to investigate a crime or not, if the evidence is strong enough to issue an arrest or not, etc, how much of a fine to issue. There have been several newspaper articles written and published by the media of police powers ie. “Police arrest 20 year old for people smuggling.” This case surrounded a 20 year old traveling overseas through illegal deportation, also called transnational crime, in the case of R vs. Jake (2005.) Arrest and warrants notifications are usually published and talked about on the news. The main role of our police is to investigate crime, and arrest, and help the prosecutor find evidence. Disadvantages of police powers is that it is often abused or overused in some areas.
Overall, the main legal personnel involved in creating an efficient process, fair and just outcome, and access – the police, judge/magistrate, and the jury. Police for letting it be known that an crime has been committed, their findings/evidence, and their police powers. Judge – for their viewings on arguments and evidence and their power and authority in the courtroom, and the jury for their decision/verdict and its huge impact on the case.
The key court personnel in the criminal justice system are the judge/magistrate, the jury, police, defense, and the prosecutor. All of these have certain powers/discretion and key roles that contribute to the effectiveness, functioning and access of the legal system. Their importance is of all equal value, they all have very different roles which can be seen through all types of different cases, legislation and issues in the criminal justice system.
A judge/magistrate main role is to take charge of all formal court proceedings, to ask the jury to deliver the verdict, and to ask for order in the court if there is an outburst from any party present in the courtroom. A magistrate only takes over matters in the Local Court. The judge takes over matters in the District Court, The Supreme Court and the High Court. They also have discretion to look at and decide if the arguments and evidence given from both the prosecutor and the defense is worthwhile considering. Once the jury delivers a guilty verdict, the judge has discretion to decide the length of a sentence imposed. The Crimes Act 1999 restricts them when imposing the length of a sentence for certain serious indictable offenses. The judge also can interpret statute laws, by applying common law. They have the responsibility to follow the doctrine of precedent to look for similar cases and their rulings to decide what to follow. This supports the notion that “all cases must be treated equally.”
Judge’s guidance, orders and opinions are highly needed for a cooperative function of the legal system. The judge guides all other parties in the courtroom. Their guidance is what will lead to the final decision; they influence the jury, the prosecutor and the defense, etc. This is why it is extremely important that they disclose their bias if they are listening to their relatives case, or anyone they discriminate against. Their significance of the influence and decision is clearly drawn and seen from the Donoghue vs. Stevenson case (1932). This case was significant in that the judge ruled and accepted the notion of negligence and it introduced the new principle that manufacturers owed a duty of care to their consumers they sell their goods and services too. This includes all kinds of services including primary, tertiary and secondary. Another significant is the Mabo vs. Queensland (1992) case. This case was significant in that the judge ruled that on behalf of Australia’s common law, agreed to acknowledge Aboriginal people their land belonged to them, and overcame the idea of “terra nullius” meaning land belonging to no one. This released the Native Title Act (1993) that acknowledged that piece of land.
However, judges always don’t have the purest of intentions. On 22nd September 2002 the Sydney Morning Herald released a newspaper article defaming a well known and respected judge within NSW reporting that this particular judge had been exposed to listening to a case involving his brother, and mislead the prosecutor, lawyer and most importantly, the jury which lead to a harsh and unjust outcome of the case. This was in the case of R vs. Jackson (2004). In this case, Jackson was accused of viciously murdering his three kids and wife. The prosecutor brought up strong linking and convincing evidence which undeniably proved the prosecutor’s case, however when brought up to the judge, it was dismissed on the basis that “it wasn’t reliable” enough, so therefore wasn’t for the jury to consider, although it was valuable evidence.
Another key court personnel valuable for the criminal justice system is the jury. The jury’s decisions are the most important, as what they decide seals the outcome of the case. They do not determine the sentence, but do they determine if there will actually be a sentencing hearing. But it is argued amongst society if they should start picks jurors for their knowledge and expertise of the legal system. Because they are just randomly picked from the community, it is controversial that they are risking a miscarriage of justice. The jury’s main role is to deliver the verdict to seal the fate off the defendant. If there is no jury, their role goes to the judge. This is often in a civil law system based on an inquisitorial system where the judge has to investigate and find evidence. In our common law system, 12 jurors is the amount required in a criminal case. In a civil law case, only 6 reside. The jury’s significance to an effective functioning of the process is undeniably seen in the case of R vs. Ramirez (1952), the significance of this case was that it raised discussion and questions about the role of the jury. In a serious manslaughter matter, the jury had a lapse in judgment as they did not view the defense’s argument carefully; this resulted in a man being wrongly convicted to 15 years of child molestation. Years after his release, the judge looked at this case through this precedent, revisiting all the arguments of the prosecution and the defense, realizing a mistake had been made. Right at that moment, a newspaper article was published from the Sunday Herald called “Controversial role of the jury – or not?” It detailed all the facts and details of the Ramirez case and raised discussion and questions within the community, and controversy of our common law system as a whole.
Finally, the police. The main police powers are listed in the Law Enforcements Act 2002 and the Bail Act 1978 NSW. These include the power to arrest, the power to issue cautions, warning and fines in relation to minor offenses, the power to stop a vehicle if they have reason to think that they are any illegal weapons being carried, the power to search premises and issue warrants. Police have discretion in many areas; including whether to decide on whether to investigate a crime or not, if the evidence is strong enough to issue an arrest or not, etc, how much of a fine to issue. There have been several newspaper articles written and published by the media of police powers ie. “Police arrest 20 year old for people smuggling.” This case surrounded a 20 year old traveling overseas through illegal deportation, also called transnational crime, in the case of R vs. Jake (2005.) Arrest and warrants notifications are usually published and talked about on the news. The main role of our police is to investigate crime, and arrest, and help the prosecutor find evidence. Disadvantages of police powers is that it is often abused or overused in some areas.
Overall, the main legal personnel involved in creating an efficient process, fair and just outcome, and access – the police, judge/magistrate, and the jury. Police for letting it be known that an crime has been committed, their findings/evidence, and their police powers. Judge – for their viewings on arguments and evidence and their power and authority in the courtroom, and the jury for their decision/verdict and its huge impact on the case.
Last edited:
This is a good response, you have used cases/media reports/legislation effectively. However, there are some issues including:
You forgot to discuss prosecution/defence roles. You could have mentioned the court officer maybe, although it isnt essential.
Some elements of your cases arent "believable". Like the case with the judge and brother, in real life that would never happen. You should have tried like "the defendant was a business associate of the judge, distant relative, some minor friendship etc" Also, in the case about the ramierez case, its the defence responsibility to lodge appeals - a judge doesnt arbitrarily review cases. However, Donogue v stevenson and Mabo were perfect cases in the 2nd paragraph.
Otherwise, your writing has improved and so has your grammar. I'd give this 10.5/15.
You forgot to discuss prosecution/defence roles. You could have mentioned the court officer maybe, although it isnt essential.
Some elements of your cases arent "believable". Like the case with the judge and brother, in real life that would never happen. You should have tried like "the defendant was a business associate of the judge, distant relative, some minor friendship etc" Also, in the case about the ramierez case, its the defence responsibility to lodge appeals - a judge doesnt arbitrarily review cases. However, Donogue v stevenson and Mabo were perfect cases in the 2nd paragraph.
Otherwise, your writing has improved and so has your grammar. I'd give this 10.5/15.
Phoebe 123
Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2011
- Messages
- 96
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2011
How about this "How does domestic law protect human rights?" Out of 5.
Domestic law protects the right of human rights issues such as discrimination with the Australian Constitution, Common Law and Legislation/codifying of rights into law. The Australian Constitution only provides limited rights for human rights such as freedom of religion, freedom from discrimination on the basis of state residence, trial by jury, and freedom of political expression. While the constitution guarantees some rights, they are limited and have a limited impact. They usually only apply to federal laws, and not to state laws. So, for example the High Court could never apply the right of religion to a law that is inconsistent with this right. Australia’s common law plays a huge part in addressing human rights because it is made by the Australian Courts, and not statutes. Judges use the doctrine of precedent to look at past cases, and look at how they have been dealt with. They can use this to interpret statutes. For example, in the significant case of Mabo vs., Queensland (1992), land rights of the Indigenous people played a huge part on the influence of common law. Finally, legislation is the most effective method, as human rights are then made a law and become legally binding. There has been several laws been made to protect human rights, including the rights of Anti-Discrimination Act 1997, the Race Discrimination Act and the Sex Discrimination Act. Australia has also signed varies of international treaties with other nations to protect human rights such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Domestic law protects the right of human rights issues such as discrimination with the Australian Constitution, Common Law and Legislation/codifying of rights into law. The Australian Constitution only provides limited rights for human rights such as freedom of religion, freedom from discrimination on the basis of state residence, trial by jury, and freedom of political expression. While the constitution guarantees some rights, they are limited and have a limited impact. They usually only apply to federal laws, and not to state laws. So, for example the High Court could never apply the right of religion to a law that is inconsistent with this right. Australia’s common law plays a huge part in addressing human rights because it is made by the Australian Courts, and not statutes. Judges use the doctrine of precedent to look at past cases, and look at how they have been dealt with. They can use this to interpret statutes. For example, in the significant case of Mabo vs., Queensland (1992), land rights of the Indigenous people played a huge part on the influence of common law. Finally, legislation is the most effective method, as human rights are then made a law and become legally binding. There has been several laws been made to protect human rights, including the rights of Anti-Discrimination Act 1997, the Race Discrimination Act and the Sex Discrimination Act. Australia has also signed varies of international treaties with other nations to protect human rights such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
I reakon 4.5/5. Just the last sentence shouldnt be there as the question says "domestic measures". Also you could maybe have elaborated a bit more on caselaw, however I think there is just enough there. This point "They usually only apply to federal laws, and not to state laws." is extremely good, as many students often overlook this aspect of Australian constitutional law.
Phoebe 123
Member
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2011
- Messages
- 96
- Gender
- Female
- HSC
- 2011
I got that of an textbook. What's the difference between state and federal again?