HSC Legal Studies Question Thread

[kiiaaa]

heyyy guys

so for im trials im doing some multiple choice and i keep on seeing this come up where the choice for the MC is 'a statutory right.' I'm really confused on what is a statutory right. could you please explain it for me? also which rights are statutory just in case it comes again. here is an example of what I mean

Thank you

[paigek3]

heyyy guys

so for im trials im doing some multiple choice and i keep on seeing this come up where the choice for the MC is 'a statutory right.' I'm really confused on what is a statutory right. could you please explain it for me? also which rights are statutory just in case it comes again. here is an example of what I mean

Thank you

I could be completely wrong but from what I think is that a statutory right is basically any 'right' that has come about through legislation of sorts if that makes sense. But for this answer he doesn't have a 'statutory right' to a lawyer as it is a common law right (because legal aid has certain parameters people have to meet to get the representation)

[bowiemily]

I could be completely wrong but from what I think is that a statutory right is basically any 'right' that has come about through legislation of sorts if that makes sense. But for this answer he doesn't have a 'statutory right' to a lawyer as it is a common law right (because legal aid has certain parameters people have to meet to get the representation)

Can vouch for this answer! Statutory rights are things enshrined in legislation (eg. right to legal aid), as compared to common law rights (which are much harder to discern. Off the top of my head, the best interests of the child in medical treatment are enshrined through Marion's Case).

[pokemonlv10]

heyyy guys

so for im trials im doing some multiple choice and i keep on seeing this come up where the choice for the MC is 'a statutory right.' I'm really confused on what is a statutory right. could you please explain it for me? also which rights are statutory just in case it comes again. here is an example of what I mean

Thank you

Was wondering why b) is also wrong in that question?

Also, for this question in a past trial paper, question 5 and 6 I am confused about. The answer to 5 and 6 are both a).
For question 5) would it really be acessory before the fact due to his browsing of that website
and for question 6) Shouldn't it be a poltiical factor, not economical?

[elysepopplewell]

Was wondering why b) is also wrong in that question?

Also, for this question in a past trial paper, question 5 and 6 I am confused about. The answer to 5 and 6 are both a).
For question 5) would it really be acessory before the fact due to his browsing of that website
and for question 6) Shouldn't it be a poltiical factor, not economical?

Hey there, so this has come up before on the forums and I was baffled last time and I am again this time. I have an ex-police officer on hand and just asked for his opinion too

We both think that Andrew is a principal in the first degree. He smashed a window. He directly committed a crime. If the answer is A, potenttttiiiiially they are angling it like, because he gave traffic to the website, he gave it the prevalence it needed to expand, and the protest was organised? But that's a very long stretch. Insufficient evidence is really available for that, I'd say. And typically, the degrees are only used for indictable offences, not summary offences like smashing a window. So, perhaps the scenario is by default talking about the anti-government sentiment, like treason, but that's a weird link/wording of the question.

And for question 6, it really could be B, C, or D, but probably not A. So political factors seems most obvious because - politics. Self-interest could be in there if Samuel and Andrew were anti-war or pacifists, and then maybe social-interest depending on their circumstances (again, insufficient facts given). So, economic factors would only be relevant if it were about the cost of the international conflict on Australia.

So I'm sorry I've been no help here because I've told you why I think the answers that are correct, are incorrect. I cannot understand why those would be the correct answers for either.

Is this from a past paper? Potentially NESA has uploaded the wrong answers?

Edit: Calling upon anyone in the legal-know-how to help here because I'm STUMPED

[pokemonlv10]

Hey there, so this has come up before on the forums and I was baffled last time and I am again this time. I have an ex-police officer on hand and just asked for his opinion too

We both think that Andrew is a principal in the first degree. He smashed a window. He directly committed a crime. If the answer is A, potenttttiiiiially they are angling it like, because he gave traffic to the website, he gave it the prevalence it needed to expand, and the protest was organised? But that's a very long stretch. Insufficient evidence is really available for that, I'd say. And typically, the degrees are only used for indictable offences, not summary offences like smashing a window. So, perhaps the scenario is by default talking about the anti-government sentiment, like treason, but that's a weird link/wording of the question.

And for question 6, it really could be B, C, or D, but probably not A. So political factors seems most obvious because - politics. Self-interest could be in there if Samuel and Andrew were anti-war or pacifists, and then maybe social-interest depending on their circumstances (again, insufficient facts given). So, economic factors would only be relevant if it were about the cost of the international conflict on Australia.

So I'm sorry I've been no help here because I've told you why I think the answers that are correct, are incorrect. I cannot understand why those would be the correct answers for either.

Is this from a past paper? Potentially NESA has uploaded the wrong answers?

Edit: Calling upon anyone in the legal-know-how to help here because I'm STUMPED

Thank you, I thought the same as you. The answers are probably wrong.

[jamonwindeyer]

Thank you, I thought the same as you. The answers are probably wrong.

Definitely wrong, someone gets confused about these solutions and posts about it every few weeks, I almost know it before I look at the question aha

Someone should probably tell them to fix it, but there's errors in their solutions dating back even further than this so I'm doubtful it would happen anyway - But definitely incorrect answers

[Mounica]

Hey Guys,
does anyone know any really good media articles for the world order's contemporary issue : regional and global situations that threaten peace and security.
thanks

[sidzeman]

What were the implications of the case of Dietrich vs the Queen? I initially thought it meant there was no right to legal representation in Australia, but I'm reading in the 2015 q23 sample HSC short answer that it " developed the importance of a fair trial through the provision of legal aid to the accused in a serious criminal matter" in common law?

Was the case overall beneficial or detrimental (in terms of establishing human rights etc.)

[Caraxyz]

Hey, just wondering if anyone had any LCM's for the effectiveness/ineffectiveness of the jury system? Thanks.

[fantasticbeasts3]

Hey, just wondering if anyone had any LCM's for the effectiveness/ineffectiveness of the jury system? Thanks.

the only one i can 'remember' is the one for the amendment of jury verdicts from 12-0 to 11-1... think it's something like "jury act" but a quick google should do it :-)

[rodero]

Hey Guys,
does anyone know any really good media articles for the world order's contemporary issue : regional and global situations that threaten peace and security.
thanks

I would definitely find some articles relating to the nuclear threat. It's such a potent issue in the world right now, and it's one that is relevant to the Legal Studies course. Your best bet would be to search for media articles related to North Korea's nuclear arsenal testing. This would work amazingly if you pair it with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT), which North Korea left in 2003.

What were the implications of the case of Dietrich vs the Queen? I initially thought it meant there was no right to legal representation in Australia, but I'm reading in the 2015 q23 sample HSC short answer that it " developed the importance of a fair trial through the provision of legal aid to the accused in a serious criminal matter" in common law?

Was the case overall beneficial or detrimental (in terms of establishing human rights etc.)

This case is a bit hazy in my head, so please bear with me.

I don't think there are many implications regarding Dietrich v The Queen; If anything, it has been an effective common law measure which upholds the 'right to a fair trial'. This human right is outlined under Art. 14 and 16 of the ICCPR, and s.8 of the Australian Constitution.

This case established the limited right to legal representation. That is, an individual who is accused of an indictable offence must be given legal representation. The judge may delay the case until such aid is available.

Personally, I see this case as one that is purely beneficial in relation to upholding human rights.

I hope this helped you two, let me know if you have any further questions

[caitlinlddouglas]

Hey i was wondering what bodies would have pushed for the reforms of the right to silence laws? All the media articles seem to be criticising the laws so i don't think it was necessarily them. Thanks!

[rodero]

Hey i was wondering what bodies would have pushed for the reforms of the right to silence laws? All the media articles seem to be criticising the laws so i don't think it was necessarily them. Thanks!

Hey !

So i'm going to admit something. I answered this question about 10 minutes ago, but kind of got sidetracked. When I finally posted my response I realised that it actually doesn't answer your question, so I deleted it and typed up a new one. However,  I feel like what I said before could still be handy, so I've copy pasted it below the ACTUAL answer - enjoy

Like you said, most NGOs and the media aren't in favour of the Evidence Amendment (Evidence of Silence) Act 2013. Essentially, it means that the accused's defence may be hampered if they do not disclose a vital piece of information during questioning, which they later rely on in trial. Very few bodies actually support the amendment, so I would conclude that it was mostly the government itself that pushed for these laws.

Police Minister Mike Gallacher stated: "The right to silence can be exploited by criminals and failing to answer police can impede investigations ... they won't be able to hide behind their vow of silence any more."

Now, time for my previous answer, which I deleted earlier but may still be useful

Hey, i'm not too familiar with this human right, since I study human trafficking and slavery as my contemporary issue. That being said, I've heard of this while learning about the criminal investigation process - rights of suspects, so I hope I can lend a hand here !

Essentially, there aren't many NGOs that are pushing for this amendment. If I were to guess, I would assume that the NSW Law Reform Commission would have some involvement with it. Out of curiosity, I did a bit of research and found a report by the Australasian Legal Information Institute, which was in response to the Evidence Amendment (Evidence of Silence) Act 2013. Here's a little extract of the report which I believe sums it up nicely:

The Evidence Amendment Act cannot be considered a genuine attempt at law reform in the sense of making changes to improve the law. Rather, it is arguable that the reform is an example of ill-conceived and populist legislation by a NSW government attempting to appear ‘tough’ on crime in response to recent media coverage of the activities of organised crime gangs operating in Sydney.

In case you were wondering, the points that AUSLII brings up are that:
1. The amendment is trying to solve issues that don't exist in the first place
2. The amendment undermines the presumption of innocence
3. It is far too complex and impractical in the legal system

So I would say that there aren't bodies which support the act. If anything, they mainly condemn it. Hope that helps

[abachmid]

HI! what are some possible essay questions we can expect for the syllabus dot point 'nature of crime'