Im confused - doesn't the trial process begin with a committal hearing to establish a reasonable case against the accused. If the crown fails to establish a prima facie case, then there's no point in gathering a jury?
CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 345
the committal hearing is mostly taken within the local court which doesn't even comprise of a jury?
k these are the definite answers now
Yay - does that also mean for q15 you believe it is B?
I put down B aswell, but my teacher marked last year and said ratification in Australia is simply the process of signing a treaty without the enactment of legislation. But then she said c) was ambiguous because the Government can enact human rights legislation regardless of signing a treaty or not due to state sovereignty. Really there is no true answer then.
Oh, I thought ratification did mean enactment because my notes say it means that Parliament passes a domestic law giving effect to the treaty - therefore making the HR punishable in Australia...hmm BOS have definitely made the multiple choice harder than what we thought based on the specimen paper
Hmm i thought so to but she said it's not, but really, how can C be correct? She said if the distribution of people is close between the two they might do both answersOh, I thought ratification did mean enactment because my notes say it means that Parliament passes a domestic law giving effect to the treaty - therefore making the HR punishable in Australia...hmm BOS have definitely made the multiple choice harder than what we thought based on the specimen paper
I agree with the possibility of both answers for q 15 being correct, but probably B being the more correct answer because it was asking for the "practical effect" of ratification. B actually gives a holistic effect, unlike C which I consider to already have been performed as part of 'ratification.'
That is true. Good point - however wouldn't that render D correct, even though there is the limitation of state sovereignty.Oh, I thought ratification did mean enactment because my notes say it means that Parliament passes a domestic law giving effect to the treaty - therefore making the HR punishable in Australia...hmm BOS have definitely made the multiple choice harder than what we thought based on the specimen paper
I think B is the most correct answer. D is very ambiguous. Remember D says "international tribunals". ICC you do not necessarily have to have ratification of its treaties to be punished if you have committed crimes (like Thomas Lubanga or even the difficulty trying to capture Oman al-Bashir) The other main international tribunal is the ICJ and ratification of international treaties means nothing here - you have to be a signatory state to have your case heard here.
Yep, move on time it's all over yeww FUCK BOS
Soooooo true