PART ONE:
Question One: There are ten (10) parts to Question One. Each part is worth one (1) Mark. Short answers will be sufficient.
a) What is the rule of law? What are its key elements?
b) What is the difference between common law and equity? Give an example of one remedy provided by the law of equity.
c) What is the name of the Act which established our Federal Parliament?
d) What is meant by the term 'exclusivepower' in relation to the Australian Constitution? Provide an example.
e) What does section 109 of the Commonwealth Constitution provide? Give an example of where this section has been applied.
f) Which is the highest court in the Australian legal system to which a party can appeal? Is the right of appeal automatic? Explain.
g) What is meant by the term 'terra nullius'. What practical effect did use of that term have?
h) What is the importance of the court hierarchy to the system of precedent?
i) Which section of the Australian Constitution sets out most of the law-making powers of the Federal Parliament? Give an example of one area of power.
j) Is the High Court a federal or a state court? Explain your answer.
Question Two - This question concerns courts, court hierarchies, and dispute resolution.
a) What does the term 'adversarial system' mean?
b) What are the advantages and disadvantages of the adversarial system? Explain these using your own example of a business law dispute.
c) List three methods of alternative dispute resolution. Briefly discuss each.
d) In a recent High Court decision, it was stated that Parliament is the proper authority to make laws which decide fundamental social issues.
Do you agree with this statement? Do the courts have a law making role? Explain your answer.
e) (i) Explain the reasons for the existence of a hierarchy of courts.
(ii) What is the original and appellate jurisdiction of the Victorian and Federal court hierarchies?
(iii) Why do we have courts with special jurisdiction?
PART TWO: Statutory Interpretation
Imagine that the Victorian Parliament passed the following Act. Read the Act and then answer the questions that follow by reference to the statutory interpretation rules we have covered in class.
AN ACT TO PREVENT THE SALE OF OFFENSIVE WEAPONS (The Parliament of Victoria, January 2015)
Whereas it is desirable to ensure that the sale of offensive weapons in public places be regulated, and to thereby limit the offences which may be committed with the use of said weapons in Victoria, be it enacted by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Council and Legislative Assembly of Victoria in the present Parliament assembled and by the authority of the same as follows (that is to say):
Section
1. Short title: This Act may be cited as theOffensive Weapons Act 2015(Vic).
2. This Act shall come into operation on February 1st, 2015.
3. For the purposes of this Act, an offensive weapon is a rifle, shotgun or revolver.
4. It shall be an offence for a person to sell an offensive weapon.
5. It shall be an offence for a person to sell an offensive weapon in a public place.
6. Any person who is found to be in breach of Section 4 of this Act shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding $500.00.
7. Any person who is found to be in breach of Section 5 of this Act shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding $1,000.00.
Your task is as follows:
1. Provide a summary and explanation of the statutory interpretation rules, maxims, and the relevant statutory interpretation legislation.
2. Demonstrate an understanding of how the statutory rules, maxims and legislation explained in your answer to Question 1 above might apply in practice by applying each of the rules etc. to each of the following case studies.
In each case study, you should consider the application of each statutory rule and the application of the relevant statute. You should not be surprised that the application of different rules etc. can lead to a different result in the same case study.
Remember to explain why the particular rule results in the particular outcome.
Case Study 1: Harry sold his flick knife to Bob while they were in a shopping centre.
Case Study 2: Carol visited the home of her friend, Jessica. Whilst there, Jessica gave Carol an airgun. Has Jessica breached the Act?
Would your answer be different if Jessica gave Carol the airgun to satisfy a debt owed by Jessica to Carol?
Case Study 3: Rhonda auctioned her father's World War II Army rifle on Ebay. Has Rhonda breached the Act?
Case Study 4: Doug, who lived on a farm, swapped his rifle for a shotgun belonging to his friend, Ian, whilst they were at a market so that he could shoot wild pigs.