Section 1 - Law & Society (1 Viewer)

[qaz0981]

question. my textbook said both peace and self-determination were collective rights. peace because by the definition of peace it affects a large number of people therefore it is collective, said my textbook. but then its also the collective right to self-determination. i was a little confused, could someone clear that up for me whilst i think of the eco study i should be doing? hahah

 

[ajdlinux]

question. my textbook said both peace and self-determination were collective rights. peace because by the definition of peace it affects a large number of people therefore it is collective, said my textbook. but then its also the collective right to self-determination. i was a little confused, could someone clear that up for me whilst i think of the eco study i should be doing? hahah

I was thinking along the lines of peace rights being a category of collective rights rather than a single right, but I would've chosen self-determination anyway since that's the really obvious one.

 

[Justin123456789]

hey,

i believe 14 is the local court.

the key word in the question is "enforce"

HREOC cannot enforce any rights, they can just make recommendations which are now always ignored by the government since brandy vs hreoc

so i dont think hreoc is an enforceable body and thus it should be A

 

[jj.oc]

But the Local Court isn't a court of general civil jurisdiction. The Local Court Act 2007 (NSW) only confers civil jurisdiction for a few types of claims, and discrimination isn't one of them, from what I can see, unless Commonwealth law confers it.

I'm still guessing I'm wrong somewhere in my argument and that the Local Court does have jurisdiction, I just can't see where from.

iv gone through heaps of legislation and from what i can gather the local court does not have the power to make determinations with regards to discrimination. the anti discrimination act 1977 specifically states that the local court where here determinations in "summary" and will not directly enforce it. according to the HREOC commission act 1984, the commission has power to make determinations conferred to it by the Racial discrimination act 1975.

so from what i can gather the answer has to be HREOC

also the answer to 4 is DEFINATELY C
contract law DOES NOT entitle a gym to make any determinations. but property law does

 

[qaz0981]

I was thinking along the lines of peace rights being a category of collective rights rather than a single right, but I would've chosen self-determination anyway since that's the really obvious one.

ahh yeah. i was so stumped, and still kind of am, they both seem right. but thanks

 

[ajdlinux]

iv gone through heaps of legislation and from what i can gather the local court does not have the power to make determinations with regards to discrimination. the anti discrimination act 1977 specifically states that the local court where here determinations in "summary" and will not directly enforce it. according to the HREOC commission act 1984, the commission has power to make determinations conferred to it by the Racial discrimination act 1975.

so from what i can gather the answer has to be HREOC

The AD Act (NSW) is even more limited than you say - the Local Court only hears offences, i.e. racial vilification, as discrimination in general is civil. But if the answer is HREOC, then we can just say that HREOC no longer exists as 'HREOC' since it was renamed the Australian Human Rights Commission.

 

[jj.oc]

hey,

i believe 14 is the local court.

the key word in the question is "enforce"

HREOC cannot enforce any rights, they can just make recommendations which are now always ignored by the government since brandy vs hreoc

so i dont think hreoc is an enforceable body and thus it should be A

if discrimination is under the local court's jurisdiction than it will be more enforceable. obviously, if its not under the local court's jurisdiction, it cannot enforce anything. however, the commision can conduct conciliation, which is, at least, more enforceable than a court that cannot make a ruling in that area.

 

[jj.oc]

The AD Act (NSW) is even more limited than you say - the Local Court only hears offences, i.e. racial vilification, as discrimination in general is civil. But if the answer is HREOC, then we can just say that HREOC no longer exists as 'HREOC' since it was renamed the Australian Human Rights Commission.

lol but i wouldnt want to argue that since my answer for 14 was D.

also, did you sit the HSC five years ago? how old are you? there is no way i culd have done anything like SDD when i was 12

 

[Frigid]

my sister did the legal studies exam this afternoon.

in my view, the MCQ answers are as follows:

1. D - Tort law is a type of private law.

2. D - This one was tricky. I prefer D (a just law represents the application of natural justice). Natural justice represents two rules: hearing rule and rule against bias. Hearing rule includes concepts of access and equality. Rule against bias is largely synonymous with fairness.

3. C - A nation's law-making power is an example of state sovereignty.

4. C - Property law allows a gym to exclude independent personal trainers and their clients. Remember, property law concerns rights of ownership and possession over property, including real property (land). The premises of a gym is real property. There is nothing in the question to show a contract between the gym and trainers (hence the word 'independent').

5. D - Self-determination is an example of a collective right.

6. B - The right to silence is an example of a legal right.

7. A - Common law is based on precedent.

8. B - The rule of law has predictability as its outcome. The rule of law encompasses two concepts: the rule of regular law or rules as opposed to arbitrary power; and equal accountability of all entities before the law, including government officials. This leads to predictable, as opposed to arbitrary, outcomes.

9. A - Legal representation is not guaranteed for everyone. Dietrich established a rule that, where an accused does not have legal representation in a trial for a serious crime and as a result the accused is deprived of a fair trial, the court may stay the proceedings. However, this applies only to trials for serious crimes. Certainly for civil proceedings, representation is not guaranteed.

10. D - The fact that two people earning different incomes are fined the same amount for fare evasion is an example of equality before the law.

11. D - I prefer D (Constitutional law). The first way of coming to this conclusion is by regard to s 5 of the NSW Constitution. That section provides that the NSW Parliament has the plenary power to make laws ("power to make laws for the peace, welfare, and good government of New South Wales in all cases whatsoever"). This would include the power to make laws to compensate victims of crime.

The second way is by elimination. The passing of a statute to compensate victims of crime is not an example of common law. Nor is it an example of natural fairness or the rule of law.

12. D - Paper submissions are relied on more than oral argument in civil law systems.

13. B - If an Australian citizen is denied entry into America (strictly this should refer to a specific nation-state, tsktsk), that is an application of that nation-state's domestic immigration laws.

14. A - I think the best method to enforce Brian's rights is through the Australian Human Rights Commission (the new name of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission since August 2009). See this page on the Commission's power to deal with complaints through conciliation.

15. C - Dispute resolution is a feature of customary law.

 

[ajdlinux]

lol but i wouldnt want to argue that since my answer for 14 was D.

LOL I've emailed the Board of Studies about it, and I'll post any response I get.

also, did you sit the HSC five years ago? how old are you? there is no way i culd have done anything like SDD when i was 12

I'm 16 presently

 

[ajdlinux]

11. D - I prefer D (Constitutional law). The first way of coming to this conclusion is by regard to s 5 of the NSW Constitution. That section provides that the NSW Parliament has the plenary power to make laws ("power to make laws for the peace, welfare, and good government of New South Wales in all cases whatsoever"). This would include the power to make laws to compensate victims of crime.

The second way is by elimination. The passing of a statute to compensate victims of crime is not an example of common law. Nor is it an example of natural fairness or the rule of law.

It's certainly 'a constitutional law', but I wouldn't call it an example of 'constitutional law'. If you say that s5 of the Constitution makes it 'constitutional law' then all laws are constitutional law. That's definitely not what the syllabus defines it as.

14. A - I think the best method to enforce Brian's rights is through the Australian Human Rights Commission (the new name of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission since August 2009). See this page on the Commission's power to deal with complaints through conciliation.

I've written to the Board pointing out that the Commission has been renamed and that therefore none of the answers seem to be correct unless you account for that. I'll post any response I get.

 

[lilainjel]

First person on this board to get question one wrong T.T""

How my discovery went:
*Looked at peoples answers and saw D for Q1*
"Wha, why is private law-"
*Thinks*
"OMG, IT SAYS PRIVATE LAW!!!!!"

Put administrative X.X I do believe I'll lose most of my marks in MC.

Two of our legal teachers looked at the MC after and think its weird. Kudos to them X)

 

[Justin123456789]

my sister did the legal studies exam this afternoon.

in my view, the MCQ answers are as follows:

for q11, i put D aswell cause i considered s5 of the constitution. and the others seem just weird.

does anyelse think 11 is d?

 

[conorater]

This is what i have got can anyone give me an idea of how i went, i no im not very good, hopefully ill pass???

1. D
2. D
3. C
4. C
5. D
6. B
7. A
8. C
9. D
10. D
11. D
12. C
13. B
14. D
15. A

 

[bmn]

my sister did the legal studies exam this afternoon.

in my view, the MCQ answers are as follows:

2. "What is an essential feature of a just law"
Natural justice is basically procedural fairness. A just law has nothing to do with procedural fairness.

11. "The NSW Government has passed a law to compensate victims of crime. What is this an example of?"
Although it is the application of powers by the constitution, it is NOT "constitutional law."

14. I disagree with you, but the argument is throughout this thread. HREOC can't enforce anything - conciliation is not enforcing a thing.

I'd like to argue with 7 as well, but A is simply not wrong. Though the wording of D makes it correct - the parliament can override common law, and change the law, but it cannot change common law itself.

 

[X-terc]

I this is what i got, im highly doubtful after i fucked up the crime the 10 mark and 25 mark workplace after reading the qt wrong AHHHHHHH FML PLEASE.

1 D
2 D
3 C
4 C
5 D
6 B
7 A
8 A (I KNOW I KNOW Ridiculous mistake)
9 A
10 D
11 D
12 D
13 B
14 D
15 C

Looking at this, most of my answers are mostly D and C which stuffs my brain up even MORE. AHHH

And i totally know what everyone is saying qt 14. the aqnswer was the australian courts, and i put the HREOC I am the most idiotic person.

 

[Justin123456789]

2. "What is an essential feature of a just law"
Natural justice is basically procedural fairness. A just law has nothing to do with procedural fairness.

11. "The NSW Government has passed a law to compensate victims of crime. What is this an example of?"
Although it is the application of powers by the constitution, it is NOT "constitutional law."

14. I disagree with you, but the argument is throughout this thread. HREOC can't enforce anything - conciliation is not enforcing a thing.

I'd like to argue with 7 as well, but A is simply not wrong. Though the wording of D makes it correct - the parliament can override common law, and change the law, but it cannot change common law itself.

yeah 14, i agree. concilitation is coming to a MUTUAL agreement which has NO LEGAL enforcement. only arbitration can be enforced.

 

[steffy123]

I wish the board wouldn't make multiple choice questions so ambiguous... my parents are lawyers and even they thought it was tricky.

 

[mckensara]

I wish the board wouldn't make multiple choice questions so ambiguous... my parents are lawyers and even they thought it was tricky.

yeah my parents where like WTF and they are lawyers

 

[steffy123]

Haha do they complain that most of the stuff they try to teach us in Legal studies is totally irellevant and "airy fairy" like mine do