Walker's case (2 Viewers)

[Angel45]

Hey,

Any1 doing the questions for Intro to Law on Walker's case wanna discuss
answers?!?

 

[Demandred]

Yeah I am doing it as well. I having some problems with the citation question, rest are pretty straight forward.

 

[JAZZAY]

I don't get exactly what the case is talking about...i get bits and pieces but some of it left me soooooo confused. Anyone kind enough to basically give me a summary as it would clarify my answers and ensure im on the right track...thanx for any input!

 

[Angel45]

walkers

Yeah, I think this walker person is saying he shouldn't be subjected to like the state and commonwealth law but like the aborignal law...but the judge is like no every1 has to be equal under the law and aborigines are subject to like the law of the territories they live in..

I think :S

So for ii) I think it's been handed down in the high court?!?

And I guess I dunno, he's seeking his charge be dropped and it be recognised that commonwealth legislation only be applicable if the aboriginal ppl. adopt it?!? But the judge like dismisses that claim.

And, I'm not too sure but I think he's the appellant... coz if he's been charged it seems like he's appealing.

I dunno the technical labels though or what arguments the judge agreed with.

 

[= Jennifer =]

yep it is high court of australia because thats what it says above the case heading

 

[Demandred]

This is a statement of claim, the Judge struck it out and dismissed it because the plaintiff's (Walker) argument was too weak.

 

[placebo]

This is a statement of claim, the Judge struck it out and dismissed it because the defendant's (Walker) argument was too weak.

Isn't Walker the plaintiff and NSW the defendant?

 

[JAZZAY]

Isn't Walker the plaintiff and NSW the defendant?

That's what i thought...and wrote lol

 

[Angel45]

Hmm..

Eeek, I thought he was the appellant?!? Because he's already been charged so he's like appealing...It's not like the "first instance".

 

[JAZZAY]

Eeek, I thought he was the appellant?!? Because he's already been charged so he's like appealing...It's not like the "first instance".

Oh sorry i meant appellant not plaintiff my mistake...

 

[Demandred]

Oops my mistake, here's a summary of the case.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/disp.pl/au/journals/AILR/1996/37.html?query=title(walker+near+nsw)

I am curious to see who's going to bring this link up tomorrow

Oh btw, who are your lecturers/teachers?

 

[Angel45]

Hey!! Thanks for the link.

 

[Angel45]

Have u read thru Chapter 1 of the textbook? It's a little heavy:S

 

[JAZZAY]

Do we need to read chapter 2? do u knw angel45?

 

[= Jennifer =]

yeah we need to read 2 as well


• What was the outcome of the case? Consider the technical and practical consequences of the decision.


what are the technical and practical consequences?

 

[Angel45]

I just referred to like it setting a precedent....


there's so much reading aye. I like skimmed thru chapter 1 it was getting so wordy!!

how much detail did u read it in?

 

[= Jennifer =]

I just referred to like it setting a precedent....


there's so much reading aye. I like skimmed thru chapter 1 it was getting so wordy!!

how much detail did u read it in?

properly like i took notes and everything, so hard though

 

[= Jennifer =]

I just referred to like it setting a precedent....

could you post your answer if you do not mind?

 

[placebo]

Yeah, I read chapters 1 & 2. Omg so deep and confusing (at times!) And that stupid Legal Research book (sleep inducing stuff!)

For the technical question I just said it would set a precedent for other cases and therefore anyone attempting to use the same argument would not be successful.

 

[Jonathan A]

Hey,

Any1 doing the questions for Intro to Law on Walker's case wanna discuss
answers?!?

You're funny!


I was just thinking about the Walker's case.