HSC Legal Studies Question Thread

[pokemonlv10]

Hello, i'm pretty sure A is the correct answer. But apaprently its B? Might be an error? or is a) wrong?

[bimberfairy]

Hello, i'm pretty sure A is the correct answer. But apaprently its B? Might be an error? or is a) wrong?

Hi there! I believe there are other complete defences that, if successful, also result in an acquittal. Examples include self-defence, automatism, and compulsion (necessity, duress), so that's why (A) is the incorrect answer.

[bimberfairy]

Hey guys! I was looking through my Family Law notes and I had two legislation written down: Family Law Act 1975 and Family Law Act 2009
Does anyone know if the 2009 one replace the 1975 one, or are both simultaneously still regulating family law?

[littleshreep]

This has always tripped me up but for Australia, does ratifying a treaty make it enforceable? I know that when incorporated into domestic legislation a treaty is enforceable, I'm just unsure if that is what ratifying means or if ratifying is only a declaration of support for the treaty

Apologies if I'm incorrect, but I'm pretty sure ratification refers to a nation signing a treaty, however it is only a signature of their agreement to be bound by the obligations of what is stated in the treaty. In addition to this step, they need to enact this international legislation within their own domestic laws. So the process of incorporating international legislation into domestic is a two-step process: ratify, and enact.

[pokemonlv10]

Hi there! I believe there are other complete defences that, if successful, also result in an acquittal. Examples include self-defence, automatism, and compulsion (necessity, duress), so that's why (A) is the incorrect answer.

Then what about B? Does the actions of the victim actually influence the mental illness defence? Whether the victim provokes the offender who has mental illness or not, they should still be able to claim mental illness?

[pokemonlv10]

Hey guys! I was looking through my Family Law notes and I had two legislation written down: Family Law Act 1975 and Family Law Act 2009
Does anyone know if the 2009 one replace the 1975 one, or are both simultaneously still regulating family law?

I'm pretty sure its the Family Law Act 1975 for family law. The 2009 thing might be something separate for de facto relationships?

[littleshreep]

Hey guys! I was looking through my Family Law notes and I had two legislation written down: Family Law Act 1975 and Family Law Act 2009
Does anyone know if the 2009 one replace the 1975 one, or are both simultaneously still regulating family law?

Is the 2009 you're referring to an amendment? Because if so, it would still be considered the Familty Law Act 1975, just that amendment in 2009 is incorporated within the original Act. But for reference in essays regarding law reform, you would refer to the amendment specifically and what ameliorations are within it. If it's not an amendment actually saying Family Law (Whatever Amendment) Act 2009, then it would be a separate Act.

[bimberfairy]

I'm pretty sure its the Family Law Act 1975 for family law. The 2009 thing might be something separate for de facto relationships?

I think it was!! I just checked online and in 2009, they reformed the Family Law Act to include de facto relationships in property disputes as well that were originally only for married couples.

[bimberfairy]

Is the 2009 you're referring to an amendment? Because if so, it would still be considered the Familty Law Act 1975, just that amendment in 2009 is incorporated within the original Act. But for reference in essays regarding law reform, you would refer to the amendment specifically and what ameliorations are within it. If it's not an amendment actually saying Family Law (Whatever Amendment) Act 2009, then it would be a separate Act.

Yep ahah I just found out that it was an amendment, not a whole new Act. Thank you so much (:

[rodero]

Hello, i'm pretty sure A is the correct answer. But apaprently its B? Might be an error? or is a) wrong?

If anything I'd say C is the correct answer. The onus is shifted from the prosecution having to prove that the accused commit the murder, to the accused having to prove that they were affected by mental illness.

[bimberfairy]

If anything I'd say C is the correct answer. The onus is shifted from the prosecution having to prove that the accused commit the murder, to the accused having to prove that they were affected by mental illness.

I agree with this too! I feel like the "correct" answer can apply to other defences too, not only the defence of mental illness.

[Evil.Morty]

Hey guys,

any predictions for the options questions this year, in particular family or workplace?

[Anfar3]

Shelter ppl - what can i say for compliance in this option?

Thanks

[paigek3]

Hey guys,

any predictions for the options questions this year, in particular family or workplace?

Didn’t do workplace, but have been through family and have noticed they haven’t specifically asked questions on
- care and protection of children
- adoption
- courts and dispute resolutions
- compliance and non compliance
- changing nature of parental responsibility

Sooo could be one of those I’ve heard lots say compliance and non compliance as a theme throughout all the options

[KavyaR]

Hi! Do we have to know the specific articles that the civil & political rights and economic, social & cultural rights are stated in the UDHR??