Legal Studies AOS 1 Unit 1 foundations Practice Sac Questions Flashcards
with reference to the law, outline two reasons how individuals can help achieve social cohesion
Individuals can help to achieve social cohesion by ensuring they are aware of the laws that govern society and relate to their daily activities and life, and by obeying these laws. For example, before undertaking an important action or activity (e.g. driving a car or opening a business), an individual must take the initiative to learn about the laws surrounding that activity and abide by these laws. This will help to ensure they do not infringe upon the rights of others when undertaking the activity and contribute to a cohesive and peaceful society.
Individuals can also help to achieve social cohesion by respecting human rights, and not acting in a way that is contrary to those rights, as this may lead to disharmony, and ultimately to a fractured society. For example, in Australia, people have a basic right to not be discriminated against on the basis of a personal characteristic (e.g. race, religion, gender, disability) and it is the responsibility of all Australians to respect this right.
Justify two reasons for having the Victorian court hierarchy
One reason for ranking the Victorian courts in a hierarchy from the lowest to the highest is so that each court can specialise and develop expertise in hearing and resolving certain types of disputes and cases. For example, the Magistrates’ Court hears all minor offences. This has enabled the Magistrates’ Court to develop expertise in hearing and determining minor offences such as minor theft (e.g. shop stealing), speeding and drink-driving. Also, while the Supreme Court can hear any serious offence, it specialises in hearing murder and murder-related offences and has developed expertise in resolving these types of matters.
Another reason for ranking the courts in a hierarchy is to allow for a system of appeals whereby higher courts can review the decisions of lower courts. This, however, can only occur if there is a very good reason why one of the parties might be dissatisfied with a lower court’s ruling.
scenario “In the case of R v Wells (2024), Magistrate Mason was required to determine whether or not Ms Wells had breached the Control of Weapons Act 1990 (Vic), which prohibits individuals from possessing and carrying regulated weapons including firearms and knifes. Ms Wells was charged by police after allegedly using a garden shovel (or spade) to threaten her neighbour. Ms Wells’ neighbour often makes excessive noise in the early hours of the morning when Ms Wells is trying to sleep.”
A) what is statutory interpretation? Suggest one reason why statutory interpretation is necessary in this case?
Statutory interpretation is the process by which judges give meaning to the words or phrases in an Act of Parliament (statute) so it can be applied to resolve the case before them.
Statutory interpretation is necessary because Acts of Parliament are often written in broad or general terms so they can be applied to a wide range of circumstances. However, sometimes a situation may arise where the words used in a statute are too broad and need to be given more precise meaning so the statute can be applied to the case before the court.
For example, in the case of R v Wells, to determine whether or not Ms Wells breached the law that bans the possession of regulated weapons in Victoria, Magistrate Mason will need to interpret whether a garden shovel can be considered to be a weapon under the Control of Weapons Act.
b) Other than in relation to statutory interpretation, explain one feature between the relationship of the parliament and courts
One relationship between parliament and the courts is that, as the supreme law-making body, parliament has the power to codify common law. That is, parliament can pass an Act of Parliament that reinforces a principle established by a court. For example, the Victorian Parliament has codified a number of sex offences (e.g. rape, incest and compelling another person to commit rape) that were initially established by the courts, but are now statutory crimes under the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).
scenario “Pete, the owner of Perfect Piercings, has been charged by the police for performing body piercings on three Year 9 students, each aged 15 years. Under section 44A of the Summary Offence Act 1966 (Vic), it is an offence for a body piercer to perform body piercing on a person under the age of 16 years without written consent from the child’s parents or guardian.”
a) with reference to this case distinguish between common law and statute law
Common law is law made by judges through decisions made in cases. Statute law is law made by the parliament. In this scenario, Pete has been charged with breaching the Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic), which is statute law made by the Victorian Parliament.
scenario “Pete, the owner of Perfect Piercings, has been charged by the police for performing body piercings on three Year 9 students, each aged 15 years. Under section 44A of the Summary Offence Act 1966 (Vic), it is an offence for a body piercer to perform body piercing on a person under the age of 16 years without written consent from the child’s parents or guardian.”
b Describe one characteristic that the law relating to body piercing (as stated under section 44A of the Summary Offences Act) needs to have to be effective. (3 marks)
To be effective, the law relating to body piercing needs to be enforceable. That is, police officers must be able to apprehend people who breach this law, and the courts must be able to enforce the penalty for breaching this law. In relation to Peter, he must suffer a consequence for breaching the law relating to body piercing (as stated under section 44A of the Summary Offences Act 1966 (Vic)), such as receiving a fine.
scenario “The County Court ordered a media company to pay a former employee $180 000 in damages. This was to compensate the employee for the harm she suffered while working as a newspaper journalist for the company. The former journalist initiated the case after suffering severe anxiety and post-traumatic stress as a result of her work. Her job required her to report on a number of distressing and tragic events including murder cases, bombings and bushfires. The Court found the media company was negligent in failing to uphold its duty of care to ensure the employee was provided adequate psychological support and care.”
a) Describe one difference between a criminal and civil case
One difference between a criminal and civil case is the nature of the breach in the law. For example, civil cases involve disputes between individuals and groups over an alleged breach of rights whereas criminal cases involve an individual committing an act (or omission) that breaks an existing law, is harmful to an another person or the broader community, and is punishable by law.
The case in the scenario is a civil case because it involves a dispute between an individual (the former journalist) and an organisation (the media company) over an alleged breach of rights. More specifically, the former journalist claimed the media organisation failed to uphold its obligation to ensure she was provided psychological support after reporting on distressing events.
scenario “The County Court ordered a media company to pay a former employee $180 000 in damages. This was to compensate the employee for the harm she suffered while working as a newspaper journalist for the company. The former journalist initiated the case after suffering severe anxiety and post-traumatic stress as a result of her work. Her job required her to report on a number of distressing and tragic events including murder cases, bombings and bushfires. The Court found the media company was negligent in failing to uphold its duty of care to ensure the employee was provided adequate psychological support and care.”
b) describe two ways the principle of fairness may have been achieved in this case
Allowing both parties (i.e. the journalist and the media company) the opportunity to engage a lawyer would have achieved fairness by enabling them to participate in the case. Furthermore, if one party (e.g. the journalist) was self-represented, the judge would have been able to assist them in understanding the trial processes to ensure they had the opportunity to participate in the case.
Jus
