How did you go?

[jourdy]

Guys, trust me, the Court of Appeal is higher. I don't want to be cocky, but I know my stuff for legal, plus I have David Thomson as my legal teacher, an absolute genius who did a masters at Oxford and knows judges, the juries commissioner, everybody. Probably the best legal teacher around. And if you don't believe me, then believe this: http://www.swtafe.vic.edu.au/lrc/abs/publication/content/wcd00009/wcd00958.gif

[oizoo]

Guys, trust me, the Court of Appeal is higher. I don't want to be cocky, but I know my stuff for legal, plus I have David Thomson as my legal teacher, an absolute genius who did a masters at Oxford and knows judges, the juries commissioner, everybody. Probably the best legal teacher around. And if you don't believe me, then believe this: http://www.swtafe.vic.edu.au/lrc/abs/publication/content/wcd00009/wcd00958.gif

Trust him, he's a DJ

[jourdy]

A DJ?

[sam-17]

What did you put for q1 Jourdy?

[jourdy]

I put royal assent, for the simple reason there was no mentioning of a date of enactment for the law. Though it was published in the Gazette, a proclamation involves the announcement of a date for the law or parts of the law to be enacted at a particular time. If there is no date given, the act will commence 28 days after royal assent. Since there was no date and 'assent' was mentioned various times throughout the passage, I went with royal assent. I'm starting to worry a bit about it though. The start of the year was when I had glandular fever and missed out heaps of info...just hope it doesn't cost me my 70/70 on the exam....

[sam-17]

I hope it doesn't cost me my 70! I put proclamation, I think your correct though. Some people have said they may accept both, I doubt it.

[ThyJovan]

This is what I've got from my teacher,

As it is an notice that appeared in the gazette it is actually proclamation.
However, the question asks what the notice is referring to, which is royal assent.
It's a trick question, although I'm swinging more towards royal assent.

I will confirm this on Tuesday when I attend the assessors meeting and obtain the answers.

[sadboy222]

Guys, trust me, the Court of Appeal is higher. I don't want to be cocky, but I know my stuff for legal, plus I have David Thomson as my legal teacher, an absolute genius who did a masters at Oxford and knows judges, the juries commissioner, everybody. Probably the best legal teacher around. And if you don't believe me, then believe this: http://www.swtafe.vic.edu.au/lrc/abs/publication/content/wcd00009/wcd00958.gif

Fail whale.

"The Supreme Court of Victoria is the superior Court in the State. The Court is divided into two divisions - the Court of Appeal and the Trial Division."

So if they are divided how does the court of appeal just jump above the supreme court?


"The Supreme Court of Victoria is the superior court for the State of Victoria, Australia. It was founded in 1852, and is a superior court of common law and equity, with unlimited jurisdiction within the state. Those courts lying below it include the County Court of Victoria, the Magistrates' Court of Victoria and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal  (which is technically not a court, but serves a judicial function). Above it lies the High Court of Australia. This places it around the middle of the Australian court hierarchy."

[meganrobyn]

Number of judges. Number wins. Same as the Full Bench is higher than the Full Court of the HCA even though it's exactly the same people. If the CoA wasn't higher you couldn't appeal there.

[sadboy222]

Number of judges. Number wins. Same as the Full Bench is higher than the Full Court of the HCA even though it's exactly the same people. If the CoA wasn't higher you couldn't appeal there.

disagree

[michak]

Ok then question: when would you be able to disapprove a precedent cause no other court is on the same level?
Would love an answer

[jourdy]

It doesn't matter whether the court is divided into separate areas or anything like that, the Court of Appeal of any court is of higher standing than its Trial Division. If you've put disapproving for that question, I'm sorry, but you've lost marks.

[akmaljamal]

The question asked for what is one reason why they may not have to follow. This leaves it open to multiple possibilities I thought.

[connej]

if you mentioned the US in the last question will you get marks deducted?

I just said however australia dosnt have a bill of rights like some other countries (e.g. the us)

will i get marks deducted ^

No, why would you? Its adding to your argument

I mentioned Canada as part of mine

[connej]

Please tell me the first question was Royal Assent. If it wasn't, then FML

I think it was proclamation

How can it be proclamation, if there was no date set

It was clearly royal assent, unless it was the dodgiest trick question ever