Section I - Multiple Choice (1 Viewer)

[Simone23]

No i think its only conspiracy if it dint happen!, so im going with just robbery.
That means for many murders people would be charged with attempted murder & murder lol
From Cambridge
"Where the crime has not been completed for some reason" ill ask teacher !!!!

Although attempted murder is when it never occurs, and attempt and conspiracy are two different things. Conspiracy is defined as A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful, and that happened. I did conspiracy and robbery as the question specifically stated that they 'planned', if the source didnt say planned i would have gone with robbery, but why put in the planned if it doesn't relate to the answer? I think it was a tough question to put in from the BOS, either its conspiracy and robbery or BOS are being really harsh with questions and confusing students.

 

[Mjontrix]

Man i dont know which multiple choice answers are reliable. Too much debate going on

 

[wogboy23]

Man i dont know which multiple choice answers are reliable. Too much debate going on

k these are the generally agreed upon answers for M/C
1)d
2)b
3)a
4)c
5)a
6)b
7)b
8)c (lol I put d, didn't see their ages)
9a
10)c
11)c
12)a
13)d
14)b (i misread and put d)
15)b
16)d
17)a
18)c
19)a
20)b
Woo, I made two stupid errors - hopefully 18/20

 

[acemusic415]

Did you just contradict yourself? You said robbery only, then stated conspiracy and robbery.

I've stated this in the exam discussion thread, but I'll post again here.

Well, I was looking at http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/conspiracy.html.

And it states 'One person may be charged with and convicted of both conspiracy and the underlying crime based on the same circumstances.'

Someone also said that conspiracy was a 'preliminary' offence. I think this is only the case when the act is not committed. However, if it is it doesn't fall under preliminary. Thus, that is why 'Conspiracy' category of crime.

I think it was B

Sorry if I confused you, but my answer was B as well.

 

[acemusic415]

I did some research: http://www.geoffharrison.com.au/conspiracy

- It seems that conspiracy in itself is its own crime and therefore the prosecution can charge it as a separate crime.

 

[premiumcbc]

You are forgiven. Yeah I looked at that website too. How annoying is the music. Another point is the wording of the question is "Which of the following best describes what Dale committed?" and if you look at the stimulus - "18 year old Alex and 19 year old Dale planned to rob a bank" and then "Dale robbed the bank".

Planned implies that two or more people conspired to perform an illegal act.Robbed demonstrates that they actually fulfilled the act. The question states "what Dale committed?" NOT what will Dale be charged with.

Therefore, the logical answer I believe would be B.

 

[acemusic415]

You are forgiven. Yeah I looked at that website too. How annoying is the music. Another point is the wording of the question is "Which of the following best describes what Dale committed?" and if you look at the stimulus - "18 year old Alex and 19 year old Dale planned to rob a bank" and then "Dale robbed the bank".

Planned implies that two or more people conspired to perform an illegal act.Robbed demonstrates that they actually fulfilled the act. The question states "what Dale committed?" NOT what will Dale be charged with.

Therefore, the logical answer I believe would be B.

LOL I muted the page. Yeah both the legal teachers (one of them a HSC marker - she's been teaching it for like 10 years) agreed with me with the operative words been planned and robbed. It seems that they are two separate crimes in itself. This however is still up to debate.

 

[Simone23]

You are forgiven. Yeah I looked at that website too. How annoying is the music. Another point is the wording of the question is "Which of the following best describes what Dale committed?" and if you look at the stimulus - "18 year old Alex and 19 year old Dale planned to rob a bank" and then "Dale robbed the bank".

Planned implies that two or more people conspired to perform an illegal act.Robbed demonstrates that they actually fulfilled the act. The question states "what Dale committed?" NOT what will Dale be charged with.

Therefore, the logical answer I believe would be B.

100% agree! The question does state committed, not charged, good way to explain it I got it right but still a bit dodgy from BOS i think

 

[crazybea]

whats the answer to the first step in the criminal trial process

 

[acemusic415]

whats the answer to the first step in the criminal trial process

It says for murder and for it to proceed to trial a committal hearing is needed. I think arrest is related to the criminal investigation process.

 

[crazybea]

dale will only be charged with robbery

alex would be charged with conspiracy

pretty certain

 

[crazybea]

It says for murder and for it to proceed to trial a committal hearing is needed. I think arrest is related to the criminal investigation process.

ill check my tbook

 

[crazybea]

OMG LMAO

the answer is actually jury empanelment

fuck me

"it is appropriate to consider jury selection as the first step in a criminal trial"

 

[crazybea]

also

alex committed a DRIVING offence (not property)

"If a motor vehicle is used to assist in the commission of an offence, the court sentencing the offender has the power to disqualify the person from holding or obtaining a driver's licence, either for a specified period or until further order [Road Traffic Act 1961 s 170]. When a person uses a car, for example, in an armed robbery or to take a rape victim to the scene of the crime, it would not be unusual for the person to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for some period in addition to receiving the penalty laid down for the primary offence."

OMG LOL

marks keep getting lower

 

[wogboy23]

OMG LMAO

the answer is actually jury empanelment

fuck me

"it is appropriate to consider jury selection as the first step in a criminal trial"

but then a committal proceeding is before that, isn't it heard in a local court? Why would you even bother thinking of jury empanellment at that stage? Committal proceeding would make more sense because it's in the local court which would see if there is enough evidence for a case to be heard in a higer court "prima facie" and then hence, determine jury empanelment. Also, under the criminal trial process of your syllabus don't you find it funny how court hierarchy is listed first and role of juries last?

 

[crazybea]

but then a committal proceeding is before that, isn't it heard in a local court? Why would you even bother thinking of jury empanellment at that stage? Committal proceeding would make more sense because it's in the local court which would see if there is enough evidence for a case to be heard in a higer court "prima facie" and then hence, determine jury empanelment. Also, under the criminal trial process of your syllabus don't you find it funny how court hierarchy is listed first and role of juries last?

the trick here

was the "criminal TRIAL process"

the trial starts off with jury empanelment

the committal proceeding initiates the trial process (but is not the first step WITHIN it)

its ridiculous imo

+ regardless of ur reasoning, i pulled that from the textbook

 

[crazybea]

also going by ur logic

the charge comes before the committal proceeding

so its either empanelment or charge

 

[wogboy23]

also

alex committed a DRIVING offence (not property)

"If a motor vehicle is used to assist in the commission of an offence, the court sentencing the offender has the power to disqualify the person from holding or obtaining a driver's licence, either for a specified period or until further order [Road Traffic Act 1961 s 170]. When a person uses a car, for example, in an armed robbery or to take a rape victim to the scene of the crime, it would not be unusual for the person to be disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver's licence for some period in addition to receiving the penalty laid down for the primary offence."

OMG LOL

marks keep getting lower

In response to your quote's last statement -"in addition to receiving the penalty laid down for the primary offence." ...primary offence was property

 

[crazybea]

In response to your quote's last statement -"in addition to receiving the penalty laid down for the primary offence." ...primary offence was property

no

if dale robbed the bank THEN drove away he would be charged with both

alex DID NOT rob the bank and hence would not be charged under property

i did white collar (fuck me)

but yeah its defo driving

 

[crazybea]

heres rationale for just robbery

Completing a crime is usually needed before you're charged and possibly convicted. Back out before finishing, and you can't be found guilty. However, did you know certain acts done in preparing for a crime can be crimes themselves? These are called inchoate crimes.

Inchoate crimes, also called incomplete crimes, make certain acts illegal even though no actual harm's done. Inchoate crimes serve to punish and deter people from crime. Three main inchoate crime types are:

Attempt
Conspiracy
Solicitation

INCOMPLETE is the key word

edit: NVM, i concede

"Conspiracy is different because you can be charged with the actual crime and the conspiracy to commit it. "