How did you go?

[LukeR]

for question 10 was it ok to talk about how australia has an extensive bill of rights and that we are run under an inquisitorial system (Kevin Rudd) and then how australia protects rights through giving easier remedies like home detention instead of the death sentence??

cheers guys 

[LukeR]

What did people write for:

The Supreme Court (trial) doesn't have to follow precedents from the Supreme Court (Appeal). Why is this? 2 marks.

HAD NO FUCKING CLUE... because they are the supreme law making body?

[sam-17]

What did people write for:

The Supreme Court (trial) doesn't have to follow precedents from the Supreme Court (Appeal). Why is this? 2 marks.

HAD NO FUCKING CLUE... because they are the supreme law making body?

I put distinguishing - the trial division found material facts different between cases

[JCurmi]

What did people write for:

The Supreme Court (trial) doesn't have to follow precedents from the Supreme Court (Appeal). Why is this? 2 marks.

HAD NO FUCKING CLUE... because they are the supreme law making body?

I said that that the precedent was a persuasive one, meaning it doesn't have to be followed.

[Dejan]

What did people write for:

The Supreme Court (trial) doesn't have to follow precedents from the Supreme Court (Appeal). Why is this? 2 marks.

HAD NO FUCKING CLUE... because they are the supreme law making body?

I put distinguishing - the trial division found material facts different between cases

I put that they were on the same level of the hierarchy meaning precedent didn't have to be followed

[sam-17]

What did people write for:

The Supreme Court (trial) doesn't have to follow precedents from the Supreme Court (Appeal). Why is this? 2 marks.

HAD NO FUCKING CLUE... because they are the supreme law making body?

I put distinguishing - the trial division found material facts different between cases

I put that they were on the same level of the hierarchy meaning precedent didn't have to be followed

I'm not sure if that would happen because cases from the trial division can go to appeal in the Court of Appeal and therefore they're not on the same level because the COA reviews the decision of the TD.

[Pa007]

What did people write for:

The Supreme Court (trial) doesn't have to follow precedents from the Supreme Court (Appeal). Why is this? 2 marks.

HAD NO FUCKING CLUE... because they are the supreme law making body?

I put distinguishing - the trial division found material facts different between cases

I put that they were on the same level of the hierarchy meaning precedent didn't have to be followed

I'm not sure if that would happen because cases from the trial division can go to appeal in the Court of Appeal and therefore they're not on the same level because the COA reviews the decision of the TD.

I also believe that it was disapproving because the supreme court is broken up into two divisions and even thought the court of appeal is a higher division, they still fall under the jurisdiction of the supreme court. Bloody VCAA, this paper was full of ambiguities this year.

[michak]

What did people write for:

The Supreme Court (trial) doesn't have to follow precedents from the Supreme Court (Appeal). Why is this? 2 marks.

HAD NO FUCKING CLUE... because they are the supreme law making body?

I put distinguishing - the trial division found material facts different between cases

I put that they were on the same level of the hierarchy meaning precedent didn't have to be followed

I'm not sure if that would happen because cases from the trial division can go to appeal in the Court of Appeal and therefore they're not on the same level because the COA reviews the decision of the TD.

I also believe that it was disapproving because the supreme court is broken up into two divisions and even thought the court of appeal is a higher division, they still fall under the jurisdiction of the supreme court. Bloody VCAA, this paper was full of ambiguities this year.

Courts on the same level of the hierarchy don't have to follow their own precedents they can make another even if it conflcits with the original precedent

[Dejan]

What did people write for:

The Supreme Court (trial) doesn't have to follow precedents from the Supreme Court (Appeal). Why is this? 2 marks.

HAD NO FUCKING CLUE... because they are the supreme law making body?

I put distinguishing - the trial division found material facts different between cases

I put that they were on the same level of the hierarchy meaning precedent didn't have to be followed

I'm not sure if that would happen because cases from the trial division can go to appeal in the Court of Appeal and therefore they're not on the same level because the COA reviews the decision of the TD.

I also believe that it was disapproving because the supreme court is broken up into two divisions and even thought the court of appeal is a higher division, they still fall under the jurisdiction of the supreme court. Bloody VCAA, this paper was full of ambiguities this year.

Courts on the same level of the hierarchy don't have to follow their own precedents they can make another even if it conflcits with the original precedent

I would assume that because it's not really a separate so that's why I though it was on the same level...

[sam-17]

What did people write for:

The Supreme Court (trial) doesn't have to follow precedents from the Supreme Court (Appeal). Why is this? 2 marks.

HAD NO FUCKING CLUE... because they are the supreme law making body?

I put distinguishing - the trial division found material facts different between cases

I put that they were on the same level of the hierarchy meaning precedent didn't have to be followed

I'm not sure if that would happen because cases from the trial division can go to appeal in the Court of Appeal and therefore they're not on the same level because the COA reviews the decision of the TD.

I also believe that it was disapproving because the supreme court is broken up into two divisions and even thought the court of appeal is a higher division, they still fall under the jurisdiction of the supreme court. Bloody VCAA, this paper was full of ambiguities this year.

Courts on the same level of the hierarchy don't have to follow their own precedents they can make another even if it conflcits with the original precedent

I really don't think thats true of the Supreme Court though - it has two distinct divisions with two distinct jurisdictions. The Court of Appeal has no original jurisdiction, unlike the trial division. So the case in the extract would have begun as a case in the Trial Division, been appealed to the Court of Appeal and then a binding precedent was set. Because it is binding, the only think it could do would be to distinguish. It is impossible for the case to have commenced in the Court of Appeal.

[michak]

What did people write for:

The Supreme Court (trial) doesn't have to follow precedents from the Supreme Court (Appeal). Why is this? 2 marks.

HAD NO FUCKING CLUE... because they are the supreme law making body?

I put distinguishing - the trial division found material facts different between cases

I put that they were on the same level of the hierarchy meaning precedent didn't have to be followed

I'm not sure if that would happen because cases from the trial division can go to appeal in the Court of Appeal and therefore they're not on the same level because the COA reviews the decision of the TD.

I also believe that it was disapproving because the supreme court is broken up into two divisions and even thought the court of appeal is a higher division, they still fall under the jurisdiction of the supreme court. Bloody VCAA, this paper was full of ambiguities this year.

Courts on the same level of the hierarchy don't have to follow their own precedents they can make another even if it conflcits with the original precedent

I really don't think thats true of the Supreme Court though - it has two distinct divisions with two distinct jurisdictions. The Court of Appeal has no original jurisdiction, unlike the trial division. So the case in the extract would have begun as a case in the Trial Division, been appealed to the Court of Appeal and then a binding precedent was set. Because it is binding, the only think it could do would be to distinguish. It is impossible for the case to have commenced in the Court of Appeal.

Yes this is true but the trial division and the court of appeal are both sub-divisions of the Supreme Court
They have their own jurisdictions but are considered on the same level as tehy both come under their heading of the supreme court

[sadboy222]

People are over-complicating this


- same level of hiearchy
- dosnt have to be followed

2 marks

[jourdy]

The Court of Appeal is above the Supreme Court Trial Division. The only method was distinguishing. They may be separate divisions of the same court, but they differ in their standing in the hierarchy.

[sam-17]

According to a report by Sydney Uni which I found online, "a single judge is bound by the decisions of the appellate court in that judicial hierarchy. Eg, a single judge in the Victorian Supreme Court is bound by decisions of the Victorian Court of Appeal" - so distinguishing is the only answer.

http://sydney.edu.au/law/cstudent/undergrad/docs_pdfs/exchange/Inbound_Introduction_CL_reasoning_2012.pdf

[michak]

I still maintain that it is disapproving
Both sub-divisions are part of the supreme court, just because they have different jurisidictions doesn't mean one is higher
It's the same place with the same judges
And if teh court of appeal was higher it wouldn't be part of the supreme court