HSC Legal Studies Question Thread

[elysepopplewell]

Also, could someone please explain how B is the answer to this?


Which of the following situations best illustrates the recognition and enforcement of human rights by the Australian legal system?
(A) When a court orders the release from custody of a 15-year-old person
(B) When a court declares that protest action by animal rights activists is legal
(C) When the Australian Parliament passes a law that makes discrimination illegal
(D) When students are denied access to classes for two weeks because of vandalism

And how A is the answer to this?
Which of the following factors accepting criminal behaviour are most likely the cause of Samuel and Andrew's actions?
Samuel and Andrew’s actions?
(A) Economic factors
(B) Social factors
(C) Self Interest
(D) Political factors

This is tricky. For the first question, if the answer is B I think it is because it addresses both the RECOGNITION and ENFORCEMENT - it is recognised by the fact that if it is legal there must be legislation saying so, so it's recognised in legislation, but the fact it was declared by a court shows the right to protest is also enforced.

[georgiia]

What body paragraphs could constitute the question

"Examine how the nature of crime and type of offences affects the criminal trial process"

Never seen a question like it 

Here's a plan I'd use
But don't take this for word ahah

1. OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON
(A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE NATURE OF THESE OFFENCES)
- Involves the causing of injury to a person. There are three categories: HOMICIDE, ASSAULT and SEXUAL OFFENCES.

MURDER: Most serious homicide offence. Maximum penalty is life imprisonment. Difficult to prove because prosecutors must prove that one of the following acts took place:
            - There was a deliberate act to kill
            - A deliberate act to cause serious harm
            - There was a reckless indifference to human life, resulting in death

MANSLAUGHTER: Unlawful killing but with a defence for their actions. Maximum penalty up to 25 years.
Three types of manslaughter:
 - Voluntary Manslaughter — The accused intended or was reckless, but there were mitigating circumstances and provocation.
 - Involuntary Manslaughter — The death occurred because the accused acted in a negligent way, but without intention to kill.
 - Constructive Manslaughter — The killing of a person while the accused was 
carrying out a dangerous or unlawful act.

(How this type of offence is dealt with/affects the criminal trial process)

- Which COURT JURISDICTION it falls under
- Legal personeelle involved
- Possible defences
e.g. Mental Illness
          - Partial defence (The defendant is found not guilty and results in acquittal)
- The person must have a mental illness
- The mental illness prevented them from knowing the difference between right and wrong
- If proven, the defendant be released but detained in a health facility where their mental health will be monitored by a Mental Health Review Tribunal.
- No mens rea for the crime can be proven. No intent to commit a crime can be formulated.

Self defence
- The onus of proof that the accused did not act in self defence is on the prosecution.
- High Court in Zecevic (1987) The defendant must prove that they believed (subjective) upon reasonable grounds (objective) that it was necessary in self defence.
- The amount of force the defendant used has to be proportionate to the threat.
- The threat doesn’t have to be real. The defendant just has to be defending himself from what he thinks is a threat (perceived threat).
- Self defence is codified in the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Division 3
- Results in an acquittal.

2. YOUNG OFFENDERS
- how there is different court jurisdiction
- different penalties
- different treatment in court procedures

3. PUBLIC ORDER OFFENCES
- fines as opposed to imprisonment ect.

[georgiia]

My best bet for the first question would be the fact that it's the only option that actually references the syllabus. i.e. environmental rights.

The second question is political factors. I know that the answers say otherwise, but many other trial papers actually have errors on the answer sheet.

Thanks, however for the second question its from a HSC because i've seen it before and NESA's answers say A... :/

[paigek3]

Here's a plan I'd use
But don't take this for word ahah

1. OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON
(A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE NATURE OF THESE OFFENCES)
- Involves the causing of injury to a person. There are three categories: HOMICIDE, ASSAULT and SEXUAL OFFENCES.

MURDER: Most serious homicide offence. Maximum penalty is life imprisonment. Difficult to prove because prosecutors must prove that one of the following acts took place:
            - There was a deliberate act to kill
            - A deliberate act to cause serious harm
            - There was a reckless indifference to human life, resulting in death

MANSLAUGHTER: Unlawful killing but with a defence for their actions. Maximum penalty up to 25 years.
Three types of manslaughter:
 - Voluntary Manslaughter — The accused intended or was reckless, but there were mitigating circumstances and provocation.
 - Involuntary Manslaughter — The death occurred because the accused acted in a negligent way, but without intention to kill.
 - Constructive Manslaughter — The killing of a person while the accused was 
carrying out a dangerous or unlawful act.

(How this type of offence is dealt with/affects the criminal trial process)

- Which COURT JURISDICTION it falls under
- Legal personeelle involved
- Possible defences
e.g. Mental Illness
          - Partial defence (The defendant is found not guilty and results in acquittal)
- The person must have a mental illness
- The mental illness prevented them from knowing the difference between right and wrong
- If proven, the defendant be released but detained in a health facility where their mental health will be monitored by a Mental Health Review Tribunal.
- No mens rea for the crime can be proven. No intent to commit a crime can be formulated.

Self defence
- The onus of proof that the accused did not act in self defence is on the prosecution.
- High Court in Zecevic (1987) The defendant must prove that they believed (subjective) upon reasonable grounds (objective) that it was necessary in self defence.
- The amount of force the defendant used has to be proportionate to the threat.
- The threat doesn’t have to be real. The defendant just has to be defending himself from what he thinks is a threat (perceived threat).
- Self defence is codified in the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Division 3
- Results in an acquittal.

2. YOUNG OFFENDERS
- how there is different court jurisdiction
- different penalties
- different treatment in court procedures

3. PUBLIC ORDER OFFENCES
- fines as opposed to imprisonment ect.

Great ideas thank you!!

Would YO be able to be included though, as it isn't in the nature of crime section of the syllabus

[rodero]

Thanks, however for the second question its from a HSC because i've seen it before and NESA's answers say A... :/

Really? I could have sworn that's from the 2014 St. Catherine trial paper. I honestly can't see why it would be an economic factor, unless i'm missing something.

[georgiia]

Great ideas thank you!!

Would YO be able to be included though, as it isn't in the nature of crime section of the syllabus

I reckon, because it is a factor of the crime that has occurred and in effect it affects the trial process

Really? I could have sworn that's from the 2014 St. Catherine trial paper. I honestly can't see why it would be an economic factor, unless i'm missing something.

It is from there hahaha, but all those questions where HSC ones

Mod Edit: Post merge

[rodero]

What body paragraphs could constitute the question

"Examine how the nature of crime and type of offences affects the criminal trial process"

Never seen a question like it 

You could even mention murder, and then the partial defences to murder -provocation and substantial impairment. In particular the case of R v Singh and the subsequent law reforms to the Provocation Act

[paigek3]

You could even mention murder, and then the partial defences to murder -provocation and substantial impairment. In particular the case of R v Singh and the subsequent law reforms to the Provocation Act

Good idea! Thanks a bunch 

[jamonwindeyer]

Thanks, however for the second question its from a HSC because i've seen it before and NESA's answers say A... :/

Really? I could have sworn that's from the 2014 St. Catherine trial paper. I honestly can't see why it would be an economic factor, unless i'm missing something.

The answers are wrong - It is definitely political factors


Additionally, I've deleted a number of posts in this thread as they shared either copies/answers to a copyright protected Trial. Ensure you are not posting anything from CSSA/Independent Trial papers.

[Mounica]

hey, Guys
if u were to get a question on either the nature of conflict or access to resources in world order, how would u set out ur essay (what would you talk about)?

[paigek3]

Sorry for another question today, doing essay plans and some questions have been throwing me!

'What is the role of legal representation in the criminal trial? Has this been an effective means of achieving justice?'

Paragraph structure assistance please?

[rodero]

hey, Guys
if u were to get a question on either the nature of conflict or access to resources in world order, how would u set out ur essay (what would you talk about)?

I'd probably be freaking out if I got this question. Here's the structure I'd do:

Nature of conflict:
Nation states have different political agendas. They will only enter into deals which are in their best interest. I'd then mention the conflict in Syria, particularly Russia's exploitation of their veto powers. This paragraph would mainly be about Russia's intention to continue vetoing any resolution brought by the UNSC, as they want to continue their trade of weaponry for the economy. The principle of R2P could be used a bit here as well.

Nature of conflict: Intolerance of other races
Rwandan genocide due to an intolerance of another ethnicity

Access to energy resources
Main focus would be the United State's illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003. The whole purpose of the invasion is seen to be for access to oil resources.

Access to food resources
Mention the severe drought in Darfur, which led to the Darfur conflict in 2003. When people began to rebel, the government commit ethnic cleansing, genocide and crimes against humanity to stay in power
You could also mention some court cases, such as the whaling incident in Australia v Japan

Hope that helps Sorry it's so brief but I really don't know much else to talk about here!

[rodero]

Sorry for another question today, doing essay plans and some questions have been throwing me!

'What is the role of legal representation in the criminal trial? Has this been an effective means of achieving justice?'

Paragraph structure assistance please?

Hey!
So i'll start by saying that a question like this is complete bull; I would only see this in trials, where the school tries to make a point as to how unprepared their cohort is.

Anyway, I doubt markers would expect much from the student when marking a question like this.

P1
What is the role of legal representation?
-Outline the role of legal representation, a judgement could be used, though this half of the question doesn't ask for one
-State its origins (Dietrich v The Queen 1982)
-Mention the Legal Aid Commission: Means, jurisdiction, merits test
This paragraph will be fairly brief

The next few paragraphs should work to answer the next half of the question

P2
-Upholds the right to a fair trial -> Australia is a signatory to the ICCPR
-Allows for equal access to legal representation
-Media articles could potentially be made up

P3
-Discrepancies in the skill of legal aids have the potential for an injustice
-Legal aid could pressure the accused into accepting charge negotiation deals

Sorry I don't have much else... But like I said, such an unlikely question that you really don't need to worry too much about it. This entire question would be of me making up constant media articles and a few cases here and there.

[paigek3]

Hey!
So i'll start by saying that a question like this is complete bull; I would only see this in trials, where the school tries to make a point as to how unprepared their cohort is.

Anyway, I doubt markers would expect much from the student when marking a question like this.

P1
What is the role of legal representation?
-Outline the role of legal representation, a judgement could be used, though this half of the question doesn't ask for one
-State its origins (Dietrich v The Queen 1982)
-Mention the Legal Aid Commission: Means, jurisdiction, merits test
This paragraph will be fairly brief

The next few paragraphs should work to answer the next half of the question

P2
-Upholds the right to a fair trial -> Australia is a signatory to the ICCPR
-Allows for equal access to legal representation
-Media articles could potentially be made up

P3
-Discrepancies in the skill of legal aids have the potential for an injustice
-Legal aid could pressure the accused into accepting charge negotiation deals

Sorry I don't have much else... But like I said, such an unlikely question that you really don't need to worry too much about it. This entire question would be of me making up constant media articles and a few cases here and there.

Yeah I doubt something as cruel as this would be asked (touchwood!) but thought I might as well prepare just in case!


Thanks so much for your imput, legend!

[Lachlan Morley]

Hi All,

In the human rights short answers, I have found that some questions will ask for a contemporary human rights issue,

Does anyone know of any holistic issues that I would be able to learn and apply to any question ?