LEGAL STUDIES EXAM THOUGHTS/DISCUSSION

[Hakusaki]

Didn't specify, but I'm with Duck, negating the factors mentioned in my post would really make what the court decided on as 'way' too lenient. If the offense included death, then a jury would probably have been called in. But, if it's just an injury, there is more a chance it would be heard summarily, no?

[AVeryAverageUsername]

Edit: Woops didn't double post afterall XD

Maybe we were all wrong?
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/thomas-towle-appeals-length-of-sentence-received-after-he-killed-six-teenagers-in-mildura-crash/story-e6frf7jo-1225806679745
'A Supreme Court jury acquitted him of six counts of culpable driving...' talks about his appeal in the Court of Appeals from that sentence

[claire92]

My teacher said either will have to be accepted, because it can be both. She said VCAA had to stuff up what could of be a completely straight forward exam.

[flash36]

Would a mention of bicameral or Westminster be required in q1?

I said the number of members for each house and the terms of service, and mentioned the Governoer as the Queen's Rep.

[chrisjb]

My teacher said either will have to be accepted, because it can be both. She said VCAA had to stuff up what could of be a completely straight forward exam.

if this is true, the A+ cut off just got pushed up to about 60/60

[Hakusaki]

But that negates my other point. Thomas Towle's culpable driving caused death. This was not specified in the question.


Good link though.

[AVeryAverageUsername]

But that negates my other point. Thomas Towle's culpable driving caused death. This was not specified in the question.


Good link though.

Yeah but they referred to it just as culpable driving...that could be the good old Hun at work though

Edit: Which makes me still unsure whether they're just one in the same offense.

Would be utterly hilarious if everyone got that wrong XD

[Hakusaki]

Newspapers are not good with legal jargon. xD

But yeah, it was a ridiculous question to have in the exam 'anyway'.

[chrisjb]

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/

Only 'Culpable driving causing death' is listed in the crimes act (not just 'culpable driving'). Does the crimes act only list indictable offences or summary ones too?

[AVeryAverageUsername]

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/

Only 'Culpable driving causing death' is listed in the crimes act (not just 'culpable driving'). Does the crimes act only list indictable offences or summary ones too?

Seems to be summary, you have theft and that there and by the looks of it all the assaults too.

Interests me there's still a crime for piracy...wonder if that one has ever been used
Edit: And yes it is of the 'arr' kind, not digital XD

[andy456]

I think they should accept both as we were not meant to specifically learn each offences 'court,' but rather jurisdictions....

[chrisjb]

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/

Only 'Culpable driving causing death' is listed in the crimes act (not just 'culpable driving'). Does the crimes act only list indictable offences or summary ones too?

Seems to be summary, you have theft and that there and by the looks of it all the assaults too.

Interests me there's still a crime for piracy...wonder if that one has ever been used

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/soa1966189/

That's the Summary Offecnes Act... which I didn't even know existed. I can't find it in there either, but then again, 'Culpable driving' could have an act all to itself (culpable driving act??). Anyway, i'm gonna go have dinner.

[Hakusaki]

Yeah, but if you look at the clauses

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) a person drives a motor vehicle
culpably if he drives the motor vehicle-

   (a)  recklessly, that is to say, if he consciously and unjustifiably
        disregards a substantial risk that the death of another person or the
        infliction of grievous bodily harm upon another person may result from
        his driving; or

   (b)  negligently, that is to say, if he fails unjustifiably and to a gross
        degree to observe the standard of care which a reasonable man would
        have observed in all the circumstances of the case; or

   (c)  whilst under the influence of alcohol to such an extent as to be
        incapable of having proper control of the motor vehicle; or

   (d)  whilst under the influence of a drug to such an extent as to be
        incapable of having proper control of the motor vehicle.


That seems to indicate that there is a distinction, because it goes on to define what 'culpable driving' is, which does not, as it describes, always equal death, but can just be a terrible injury.

[darcy42]

I reckon they'll accept both.
That exam was a little too easy, a very high A+ cutoff is likely.

[Hakusaki]

Yeah, most likely accept both. :]