Section I: Multiple Choice (2 Viewers)

[Sambam429]

Guysss I also got c for 20!

 

[Sambam429]

What about question 15? I put d and there's no way it's b because it says statutory

 

[Smooth Operator]

What about question 15? I put d and there's no way it's b because it says statutory

Judges can interpret and apply human rights legislation which are passed by statutory laws. Statutory laws are not 'enshrined' in the Constitution to my knowledge. Therefore (B).

 

[edwardf316]

What about question 15? I put d and there's no way it's b because it says statutory

Its B. Read the answer in full, yes its says statutory but the response is in regards to legislation

 

[tamtheman]

What about question 15? I put d and there's no way it's b because it says statutory

I put d aswell.


What'd everyone get for 11? Because I didn't think the federal state enacted treaties, pretty sure that's parliament?

 

[SuchSmallHands]

I put d aswell.


What'd everyone get for 11? Because I didn't think the federal state enacted treaties, pretty sure that's parliament?

It says 'statute' not state. Answer is A.

 

[tamtheman]

Feeling rather dumb right now

 

[SuchSmallHands]

Feeling rather dumb right now

It's cool, I misread an option on one of them too. We all do silly things when we're rushing

 

[Myans]

Can anyone scan the exam on here? I'll post solutions to MC

 

[edwardf316]

Feeling rather dumb right now

Don't sweat it. It's only one part of the exam

 

[Smooth Operator]

I think for 12 it's (B). Because the Constitution may not explicitly say but the right to a fair trial generally implies legal representation. There is such thing as implied rights within the Australian Constitution. That's what I think at least.

 

[SuchSmallHands]

I think for 12 it's (B). Because the Constitution may not explicitly say but the right to a fair trial generally implies legal representation. There is such thing as implied rights within the Australian Constitution. That's what I think at least.

Hmm, yeah, we have a right to a fair trial including legal representation. But that right is limited by the fact that common law (Dietrich v The Queen) stipulates we're not always going to be entitled to a free lawyer. So it's a right that is limited by common law, in my understanding. But it's possible that I'm wrong obviously.

 

[tamtheman]

I also did b for 12 because I too thought it was an implied right. Idk even know

 

[Smooth Operator]

Hmm, yeah, we have a right to a fair trial including legal representation. But that right is limited by the fact that common law (Dietrich v The Queen) stipulates we're not always going to be entitled to a free lawyer. So it's a right that is limited by common law, in my understanding. But it's possible that I'm wrong obviously.

Oh, I'm not even thinking legal aid haha. I was merely thinking the right to be represented in court regardless of means.
I could be wrong though, it's not a very nice question.

I either forgot or did not know about that case, but it sounds familiar..

 

[SuchSmallHands]

Oh, I'm not even thinking legal aid haha. I was merely thinking the right to be represented in court regardless of means.

Well legal aid is the body that tries to uphold the right to be represented in court regardless of means.

 

[Constantine]

@ edwardf316

Is that Rasputin in your dp?

 

[edwardf316]

@ edwardf316

Is that Rasputin in your dp?

yep

 

[edwardf316]

I also did b for 12 because I too thought it was an implied right. Idk even know

This is from the Cambridge textbook "Dietrich v The Queen (1992), which for the first time established a limited right to legal representation in Australia"

 

[Constantine]

yep

(y) top bloke

 

[Smooth Operator]

This is from the Cambridge textbook "Dietrich v The Queen (1992), which for the first time established a limited right to legal representation in Australia"

Well there you go.. The more you know, unfortunately I learnt this after the fact.