Section I: Multiple Choice (1 Viewer)

[xetamine]

Can't be warning or caution as it has entered the court process. Community service is right.

 

[Evertone]

Source???.

Section 33, Clause 1 (f) of the Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW).

 

[dwk72]

Can't be warning or caution as it has entered the court process. Community service is right.

Cautions can be given by the court: http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/yoa1997181/s31.html
Community service probably not, given the age of the child.

 

[xetamine]

I was wrong. Children's court can indeed issue cautions.

"The Children’s Court may give a caution under the YOA if the offence is one for
which a caution may be given. If the c
ourt exercises this option, the Local Area
Commander of the police station (closest to where the offence occurred) is given
written of this decision and the reasons for the decision [section 31]. The
Children’s Court regularly dispose of matters by way of
YOA caution in instances
where a young person has exercised a “right to silence” at the police station and/ or
does not make the required “admission” to the offence."

http://www.legalaid.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/6522/Young-Offenders-Act-.pdf

Pg 5.

 

[MasterEnglish]

people say its caution... i say its community service, though i think im wrong

 

[AlikSong]

Did you all actually find the multiple choice questions relatively easy? I felt it was much more difficult and a lot more implicit than previous years'...

 

[StudyToDeath]

some were really easy and others really hard

 

[dwk72]

What about the bus ticket one? Is it white collar because he was committing fraud, or was it the other one because he did a summary offence?

I said summary, simply because of the scale of the crime, but I could be wrong......

 

[MasterEnglish]

sTRICT LIABILITY OFFENCE OR PUBLIC ORDER. I put public order as he had mens rea for strict liabilty offence due to him knowing he didnt have a ticket. Idkk

 

[xetamine]

Strict liability means that the prosecutor does not need to prove mens rea.

It's Summary + Strict Liability.

Also fare evasion is an economic offense, not public order.

 

[spatula232]

Strict liability means that the prosecutor does not need to prove mens rea.

It's Summary + Strict Liability.

Also fare evasion is an economic offense, not public order.

This

Plus you could tell it was summary because it was a police prosecutor as opposed to the DPP or whatnot

 

[Freyo]

Did anyone else get 5 B's after each other somewhere along the middle? I was freaking out but I went over them and they all looked like they were right

 

[zachary99]

Did anyone else get 5 B's after each other somewhere along the middle? I was freaking out but I went over them and they all looked like they were right

YES glad it wasnt just me haha.......i have a feeling one of them is wrong but :/

 

[Actom360]

What about the manslaughter one? Was the answer self-defence or jury?

 

[HecticSandWitch]

What about the manslaughter one? Was the answer self-defence or jury?

"In the criminal law of Australia, self-defence may be a complete defence to criminal liability for causing injury or death in defence of the person or, to a limited extent, property, or a partial defence to murder if the degree of force used was excessive."

So the answer is that the lawyer was wrong, it is a full defence for manslaughter (providing the force wasn't excessive but considering it is manslaughter one can assume that it is not excessively violent)

 

[spatula232]

"In the criminal law of Australia, self-defence may be a complete defence to criminal liability for causing injury or death in defence of the person or, to a limited extent, property, or a partial defence to murder if the degree of force used was excessive."

So the answer is that the lawyer was wrong, it is a full defence for manslaughter (providing the force wasn't excessive but considering it is manslaughter one can assume that it is not excessively violent)

*fist pump*

 

[Cleverusername5321]

Strict liability means that the prosecutor does not need to prove mens rea.

It's Summary + Strict Liability.

Also fare evasion is an economic offense, not public order.

Actually strict liability means honest and reasonable mistake of fact (He Kaw Teh). What you're talking about is absolute liability. But I don't think that's in the legal studies syllabus.

Can someone post the paper? I'm curious about how I would go now that I'm actually in law school.

 

[Evertone]

Did anyone else get 5 B's after each other somewhere along the middle? I was freaking out but I went over them and they all looked like they were right

I only got 3 B's in a row.

 

[xfax12]

Hey guys! The final question was really trippy though; something about the guy being of good character but having a mandatory sentence imposed on him and so what should the community group do for the BEST of the dude? What do you guys think? I was thinking answer was b (good characters), but not sure. Others think it was C (pressure the parliament to repeal it's law). d (actus reus and men's rea) was wrong because there were video cameras used whic showed him commit the crime.. Idk what do you all think???! A was argue that it's unconstitutional

 

[Freyo]

"In the criminal law of Australia, self-defence may be a complete defence to criminal liability for causing injury or death in defence of the person or, to a limited extent, property, or a partial defence to murder if the degree of force used was excessive."

So the answer is that the lawyer was wrong, it is a full defence for manslaughter (providing the force wasn't excessive but considering it is manslaughter one can assume that it is not excessively violent)

Is that true though? What about the answer that said the trial must be heard before a jury? It's manslaughter, a serious indictable offence that must be heard before a jury so how could that choice be wrong? On the other hand, self-defence is a complete defence for MURDER. Yes that consequently makes it a full defence for manslaughter as well but considering that other choice was there it sounded like the more correct answer