HSC Legal Studies: Suggested Answers and Discussion

[PulseDefect]

Hey! I'm not Jamon but I thought I'd give my input. Prior to Dietrich v the Queen (1992), it was affirmed that a defendant can have a fair trial without access to legal representation. This occurred through the case of McInnes v the Queen (1979). The prosecution had so much evidence stacked up against Mcinnes that it was said that he did not require legal aid for a fair trial. In Dietrich v the Queen, it was said that the defendant has a right to legal representation if they cannot receive a fair trial without one.

I think it is more simple to explain that in Dietrich's case, if he did have legal aid granted to him, he would've had a real chance at acquittal ([2] of Mason CJ & McHugh J's reasons) and where a person would be entitled to an acquittal, that path should be taken simply because the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt someone's guilt. If there is the chance for acquittal, then reasonable doubt is raised and that would constitute a "miscarriage of justice".

[jamonwindeyer]

Jamon do you think the alignment thus year will be too easy than previous years?! I need around 83-84 hsc mark what raw do you think that is?

Also I got 18/20 for multiple choice yeeewww

I reckon it will be a tad easier than in previous years, but not by much! I'd say low to mid 70's would get you the marks you need, based on data in the Raw Marks Database

Well done on the MC!!

[jamonwindeyer]

Hey! I'm not Jamon but I thought I'd give my input. Prior to Dietrich v the Queen (1992), it was affirmed that a defendant can have a fair trial without access to legal representation. This occurred through the case of McInnes v the Queen (1979). The prosecution had so much evidence stacked up against Mcinnes that it was said that he did not require legal aid for a fair trial. In Dietrich v the Queen, it was said that the defendant has a right to legal representation if they cannot receive a fair trial without one.

So, individuals do not always have a right to legal representation, which is implied by A. They only have a right to legal representation if they would not receive a fair trial (which is an injustice) without one. Thus the answer is D and not A.

Sorry if I explained this poorly! I'm sure Jamon will provide a clearer answer.

I think it is more simple to explain that in Dietrich's case, if he did have legal aid granted to him, he would've had a real chance at acquittal ([2] of Mason CJ & McHugh J's reasons) and where a person would be entitled to an acquittal, that path should be taken simply because the prosecution has to prove beyond reasonable doubt someone's guilt. If there is the chance for acquittal, then reasonable doubt is raised and that would constitute a "miscarriage of justice".

Both excellent explanations for Question 17 thanks guys!

[aashini]

They were nasty hey! Had me scratching my head!

they were indeed.

[rachelbonic]

a bit confused by the posts, sorry ahaha so is the answer to question 4 the district court or the court of criminal appeal?