Multiple Choice (3 Viewers)

[legallaura]

For question 15, "an accused is considered innocent until proven guilty. Which of the following best reflects this principle?"
I put remand
if that's wrong can someone explain why??

 

[wogboy23]

Hey there and thanks for putting in yours... but um i got B for 2?! can someone confirm that??
i fudged alot of my MC... rushed it.

Hi there, I can confirm that Question 2 is certainly B. There is no way it is A, as the accused has already been charged at the end of the investigation process, where bail/remand issues are deliberated...
It is B as a committal hearing (prima facie) is done in a Lower court to see if there is enough evidence for the accused to be tried in a higher court

 

[btx3]

do you think they could possibly accept two answers for 19?

 

[wogboy23]

Not remand, because remand (detainment in custody) suggests that the crime is indictable, whereas the correct answer, bail, supports the maxim of 'innocent till proven guilty' as the accused, whilst restricted, does have some freedoms before attending his/her court case in accordance with their summons

 

[wogboy23]

do you think they could possibly accept two answers for 19?

No, we thought the same last year for a similar ratification/enactment dilemma, but wasn't the case.

 

[wootwoot1234]

Not remand, because remand (detainment in custody) suggests that the crime is indictable, whereas the correct answer, bail, supports the maxim of 'innocent till proven guilty' as the accused, whilst restricted, does have some freedoms before attending his/her court case in accordance with their summons

could you please clarify your answer for 5? i got a. thanks

 

[justinium]

Even though I answered "A summons"....Question 20 technically doesn't have any correct option. They changed the terminology in the legislation from a summons to court attendance notice a few years ago.

For Q16 - Obviously it is not A. Can't be B because the police have the power to confiscate spray cans from minors under s.9 Graffiti Control Act 2008 and for D the police ARE allowed to ask a series of questions of the children... the scenario doesn't even specify what the questions are... so making an inference that they are asking questions relevant to the commission of the crime and require the presence of a parent/guardian would be wrong. They could have been asking them for proof of identity for all you know or maybe how their day was at school or maybe if they knew the laws about whether the police are allowed to insist for them to go to the police station... hahahha

The answer is C. They cannot insist that Kim and Ashley go to the police station because they have NOT arrested them.

 

[wogboy23]

could you please clarify your answer for 5? i got a. thanks

Certainly. Basically, the role of the jury is to hear the evidence presented through cross-examination of both parties, then to decide upon a verdict of guilt or innocence. It is then the role of the judge presiding to pass the appropriate sentence, thereby cancelling out A already. C is just silly as representation is not a guaranteed allowance (Dietrich v Queen 1992) and it is again the role of the judge to determine the admissibility of evidence
It is B - to decide if the standard of proof is met (in criminal cases, beyond the reasonable doubt) - after the evidence has been presented, if there is absolutely no doubt in the eyes of the jury that the accused is guilty, then this is reflected in their judgement.

 

[WhatCnut]

1. D
2. B
3. A
4. D
5. B
6. D
7. B
8. C
9. B (I had A, but then changed at the end, I seriously don't know why lol)
10. B
11. C
12. C
13. D
14. A
15. A
16. D (Because to ask underage people a series of questions without their parents present is not allowed and is inadmissible - insisting they go to the police station is fine, they have no choice in that, and the other two are perfectly fine.)
17. C
18. D
19. D (A human right is typically set out in a treaty, which is then ratified into Australian law. To put a human right into law without any prior precedence internationally is enacting legislation - but where it is from international law, it is ratifying it)
20. C

 

[ic3410]

cheers

 

[justinium]

do you think they could possibly accept two answers for 19?

No... look up the definition of ratify.

 

[WhatCnut]

No... look up the definition of ratify.

Definition of 'ratification' according to HSC Cambridge Legal Studies, "A nation's formal declaration of consent to be bound by a treaty and to give it domestic effect"

 

[wogboy23]

I think we can all agree that Q 19 is riddled with ambiguity

 

[ic3410]

Hi again, Im just wondering about question 7. I put D

 

[WhatCnut]

"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.

 

[ic3410]

ahh cheers, i was deciding between the two. oh well :/

 

[iamorbid]

Let me point out that the scenario in Q16 implies that the two girls are using PUBLIC TRANSPORT so the police CAN ask them questions, look it up in your damn books under rights of young offenders when dealing with the police
Therefore it is C, NOT D

 

[justinium]

Definition of 'ratification' according to HSC Cambridge Legal Studies, "A nation's formal declaration of consent to be bound by a treaty and to give it domestic effect"

Giving it domestic effect doesn't mean that it has been enacted as legislation. The domestic effect is an influence on common law....

From the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade:
"Signature and ratification do not, of themselves, make treaties operate domestically. In the absence of legislation, treaties cannot impose obligations on individuals nor create rights in domestic law. Nevertheless, international law, including treaty law, is a legitimate and important influence on the development of the common law and may be used in the interpretation of statutes."
REF: http://www.dfat.gov.au/treaties/making/index.html

The answer is without question B.

 

[shannan94]

"The CCA is a court of review. This means that it does not hear evidence itself, and in most cases, fresh evidence is not admissible. Where a conviction is challenged, the court will review the proceedings and the judgment of the lower court, and must decide whether an error of law has been shown. An error of law is a misinterpretation or misapplication of a principle of law, or the application of an inappropriate principle of law to the facts concerned."

Hahahahaha, you make me laugh. Thanks for selectively quoting the armstrong legal website.

Shame in your limited legal knowledge you have missed the fact that section 73 of the constitution provides the High Court with appellate jurisdiction where special leave is granted. Therefore the highest court you are able to appeal to is the high court.

 

[Keelan134]

The Appeals question was wrong to start with. Drug Trafficking is prosecuted in the Supreme Court not the District Court. I said Court of Criminal appeals as she was appealing conviction, and that is the jursidiction of the Court of Criminal Appeal.
Here are my answers my teacher thinks I got 19/20 but you be the judge,
1)D
2)B
3)A
4)D
5)B
6)D
7)D
8)C
9)A
10)B
11)C
12)C
13)Ambigious however I said D, could have been B
14)A
15)A
16)D
17)C
18)Odd, I said A, isnt there a law that minors cant buy spray paint. D I wasn't too sure with as you could just be transporting the Spray paint, and a strict liability offence requires only the proving of Actus Reus, and I don't see no guilty act in that
19) I Said D but somebody argued B and I like their thinking
20)C

14