The Judiciary

Question 1

Outline 3 roles of the High Court (highest court in judicial system)

Answer 1

1. Acting as the highest court of APPEAL
2. Protecting the rights of Australians
3. Acting as a ‘check’ on Commonwealth lawmaking powers

Question 2

Define express rights

Answer 2

rights that are written/embedded within the Constitution that cannot be changed unless a referendum is held and is successful.

Question 3

Outline five express rights entrenched in the Constitution

Answer 3

1. Freedom of religion
2. Acquisition of property on just terms
3. Trial by jury for indictable offences
4. Trade between states shall be free
5. The right to not be discriminated based upon states of residence

Question 4

Outline how the High Court acts as a ‘check’ on parliament

Answer 4

When individuals believe their rights have been infringed, they have standing to take the matter to courts.

Standing: the ability for a party to show that they were directly affected by the outcome of a case.

Question 5

Original jurisdiction

Answer 5

the authority or legal power of a court to hear the case at first instance

Question 6

Appellate jurisdiction

Answer 6

the power of a court to hear and determine a matter on appeal

Question 7

Appeal

Answer 7

a party attempting to seek a review of the trial judge’s decision from a more superior court to correct/reverse the decision that was made

Question 8

Jurisdiction of the Magistrates’ Court, including committals

Answer 8

lowest court in hierarchy, although the busiest when it comes to resolving criminal disputes.

warrants, bail applications, and summary offenses heard in MC.

committals are also in charge of COMMITTALS; a series of hearings that occur when an accused has been charged with an indictable offense in order to determine if sufficient evidence exists for the matter to be taken to trial.

Question 9

The County Court

Answer 9

original: hears all indictable offences but murder and manslaughter

appellate: hears appeals against conviction and sentencing from the Magistrates’ court in criminal matters

Question 10

The Supreme Court (TRIAL DIV)

Answer 10

Original: The trial division of the Supreme Court deals with the most serious criminal cases such as murder, manslaughter and treason. When an accused has pleaded not guilty, the case is heard by a justice and a jury of 12 people drawn from the electoral roll.

Question 11

The Court of Appeals

Answer 11

Appellate jurisdiction: The COA has the power to hear and determine appeals from the County Court and trial division of the Supreme Court.

Question 12

The role of the judge

Answer 12

-Ensuring both parties obey rules of evidence and procedure in court

-Protect the rights of witnesses and victims when testifying

-Summing up evidence and explaining the law to the jury

Question 13

The role of the Magistrate

Answer 13

-Oversee the conduct of a hearing for minor offences

-Determine the verdict of a case should the accused plead not guilty

-Determining an appropriate sanction that fits the offence

Question 14

The role of the prosecution

Answer 14

-Present evidence at trial

-Determine which witnesses to call

-Start the trial by providing the judge + jury with an opening address

Question 15

The difference between the standard and burden of proof

Answer 15

Meeting the burden and standard of proof is required to prove the guilt of the accused, finding suspicion BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT.

Question 16

The composition of the jury

Answer 16

Consists of people chosen at random from the electoral roll. Twelve (12) jurors are selected for criminal trials and possible fifteen (15) for special cases such as very long trials. The jury is essentially a fact-finding body.

Question 17

Two strengths of the jury

Answer 17

Juries are impartial and independent: instructed to have unbiased, independent decision-making + X take in consideration personal characteristics of the accused such as their age, ethnicity, etc. Should only be bc of evidence if guilty

Juries spread the decision-making process, : spreads the decision-making process and acts to eliminate bias/corruption

Question 18

Two weaknesses of the jury

Answer 18

Juries do not need to provide a reason for their decision; they don’t need to justify why, therefore a finding of guilt could be based upon biased attitudes or discrimination, but it will not be known since they dont have to justify their conclusions.

Jurors may not understand complex legal jargon/evidence: members of the jury are chosen from the electoral roll at random. as such, they are not trained or experienced in the law, t/f , jury may struggle to understand complex legal jargon and terminology that is used in court.

Question 19

Precedent

Answer 19

a principle established in a legal case that should be followed by our courts in future cases where the material facts are similar.

Question 20

Stare decisis

Answer 20

Latin for ; ‘let the decision stand’

whereby consistency is ensured through the following of previous decisions when similar matters arise in the future.

Question 20

Ratio decidendi

Answer 20

Latin for ; ‘reason for the decision’

that is, the reasoning behind the decision the judge reached.

Question 21

Obiter dicta

Answer 21

Latin for ; (singular) obiter dictum | ‘statements made by the way’

that is, comments made by the judge in a particular case that may be persuasive in guiding future cases

Question 22

Outline what makes precedent binding

Answer 22

Binding precedent must be followed.
Because the legal principle was;

-Set by a higher court in the same court hierarchy and pertains to a matter of similar material fact

Question 23

Outline what makes precedent persuasive

Answer 23

Persuasive precedent does not have to be followed.
Because the legal principle was;

-Set by another state or country (different court hierarchy)
-Set by a lower court in the same court hierarchy
-Pertains to different material facts

Question 24

Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) : Key facts

Answer 24

Mrs. Donoghue was given a bottle of ginger beer by a friend at a café . After drinking some, she discovered a decomposed snail inside the opaque bottle and subsequently fell ill, suffering from gastroenteritis and shock. Since the bottle was sealed and she had no way of inspecting its contents, she sued the manufacturer, Stevenson, for negligence, claiming that he had failed to ensure the product was safe for consumption.

Question 25

Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) : Issue

Answer 25

The legal issue in Donoghue v Stevenson was whether a manufacturer owed a duty of care to a consumer who had not purchased the product directly. Since Mrs. Donoghue had no contract with the manufacturer, the case questioned whether she could still sue for negligence based on the harm caused by the contaminated drink. The court had to decide if Stevenson, as the manufacturer, was legally responsible for ensuring the product was safe for all foreseeable consumers.

Question 25

Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) : Decision

Answer 25

The House of Lords ruled in favor of Mrs. Donoghue, establishing that Stevenson owed a duty of care to consumers, even without a direct contract. The court held that manufacturers must take reasonable care to prevent harm to those who will ultimately use their products. This decision introduced the "Neighbour Principle," stating that individuals must avoid acts or omissions that could reasonably foreseeably harm others. As a result, Mrs. Donoghue was allowed to pursue her negligence claim against Stevenson.

Question 26

Donoghue v Stevenson (1932) : Outcome

Answer 26

The outcome of Donoghue v Stevenson was that Mrs. Donoghue was allowed to proceed with her negligence claim, but the case never went to a full trial because Stevenson passed away before it was resolved. It is believed that the case was settled out of court, though the exact details remain unknown. Despite this, the ruling established a landmark precedent in negligence law, shaping future cases on duty of care and product liability.

Question 27

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1935) : Key facts

Answer 27

Dr. Grant purchased woollen underwear from a retailer, which had been manufactured by Australian Knitting Mills. The garments contained excess sulphite chemicals, which had not been properly removed during production. After wearing them, Dr. Grant developed severe dermatitis, leading him to sue the manufacturer for negligence, claiming they failed to ensure the product was safe for use.

Question 28

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1935) : Issue

Answer 28

The key legal issue was whether a manufacturer owed a duty of care to a consumer when there was no direct contract between them. The court had to decide whether the manufacturer was legally responsible for harm caused by a defective product, extending the principle from Donoghue v Stevenson beyond food and drink to other consumer goods.

Question 29

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1935) : Decision

Answer 29

The Privy Council ruled in favor of Dr. Grant, confirming that Australian Knitting Mills was negligent. The court applied the "Neighbour Principle" from Donoghue v Stevenson, establishing that manufacturers have a duty of care to ensure their products are safe for consumers.

Question 30

Grant v Australian Knitting Mills (1935) : Outcome

Answer 30

Dr. Grant was awarded damages for his injuries, reinforcing that manufacturers can be held liable for harm caused by defective products, even when sold through a retailer. This case expanded negligence law in Australia, strengthening consumer protection and establishing clear liability for unsafe goods.

Question 31

Statutory interpretation

Answer 31

When judges apply or generate meaning for words within Acts (laws) made by parliament to resolve a dispute.

Question 32

Reasons for statutory interpretation

Answer 32

-Unclear wording -Changing nature of words -To clarify words

Question 33

Impacts of statutory interpretation

Answer 33

1. A narrowing of the meaning of the term, whereby possible meanings are excluded and thus the scope of accepted interpretations is made smaller. 2. A broadening of the meaning of the term, whereby the possible meanings are expanded to include more meanings or examples.

Question 34

Deing vs Tarola [1993] : Key Facts

Answer 34

- Deing was wearing a belt with raised metal studs. -Deing was arrested, charged and found guilty in the Magistrates' Court for possessing a 'regulated weapon'. -Deing appealed in the Supreme Court.

Question 35

Deing vs Tarola [1993] : Issue

Answer 35

-Deing was charged under section 6 of the 'Control of Weapons Act 1990 (Vic)'. - states it is illegal to 'possess, carry or use any regulated weapon without lawful excuse'. -The court had to interpret the words, 'regulated weapon' and determine if studded belts were included in that category

Question 36

Deing vs Tarola [1993] : Decision

Answer 36

-'Regulated weapon' is a broad term covering a range of items. -Justice Beach (Supreme Court), determined that a 'regulated weapon' should be defined as anything that is not commonly used for any other purpose than as a weapon. -His belt was not found within the definition and his conviction was overturned

Question 37

Deing vs Tarola [1993] : Significance

Answer 37

-The judge through his statutory interpretation of the 'Control of Weapons Act' , NARROWED the definition of 'weapon' by excluding items. -clarified specific meanings of the words in the Act. -created a precedent for similar, future cases.