Yr 11 - Legal Studies Exam Revision

Define separation of powers

Division of power and responsibilities among the three branches of Australian government to prevent corruption.

responsibilities of legislative government:

makes laws, and represents the peoples’ best interests

responsibilities of the executive government:

enforces, and puts laws into action

responsibilities of judiciary government:

interprets laws, and reviews legal decisions

examples of legislative government:

House of Representatives, and the Senate

examples of executive government:

Prime minister, and the cabinet

examples of judiciary government:

High court, and lower courts

rule of law definition:

all individuals are equal before the law, and must obey the law

Role of the Opposition

To challenge the government, offer alternatives, and keep them accountable (represents the citizens’ interests)

legal precedent definition

legal precedent is a principle or rule established in a prior court ruling that is then used by a court when deciding subsequent cases with similar issues or facts.

Role of The High Court

Final court of appeal, interprets the constitution, and reviews the legal decisions of the lower courts

The three levels of government

federal, state/territory, and local council

Federal government definition:

prioritises nationwide issues

Example of federal government issues

national security, tax collection, immigration

State/Territory government definition:

addresses issues exclusive to a specific state

State/Territory government example

public transport, education, healthcare

Local government definition

governs proceedings in a specific city/region

local government example

responsible for recycling collection, local roads, local footpaths

Legal Conclusion Definition

A court's decision on the legal outcome based on specific facts. It applies legal rules to the facts to reach a verdict, unlike a factual finding.

civil case definition

resolves dispute between two opposing parties (usually over possession of land, or financial compensation)

standard of proof for civil case

balance of probabilities

criminal case definition

punishes individuals for violating the law

standard of proof for criminal case

beyond a reasonable doubt

Cross Examination Definition

The process where a witness is questioned by the opposing party to test the accuracy and truthfulness of their testimony. It aims to clarify facts, challenge credibility, and uncover potential biases.

Re-examination Definition

Following a cross-examination, the party who initially called the witness has an opportunity to ask further questions to clarify any issues raised during cross-examination. It is limited to the scope of the cross-examination.

examination in chief

The first direct examination of a witness by the party who called them to testify. It allows the party to present the witness's version of events.

Why do civil and criminal trials have different standards of proof?

Civil and criminal trials have different standards of proof because of differing stakes. Civil cases require a 'balance of probabilities' since outcomes usually involve money or rights. Criminal cases demand 'beyond a reasonable doubt' due to the severe consequences of a guilty verdict: imprisonment or worse.

role of the judge

an unbiased referee, ensures fairness, manages court proceedings, answer jury’s questions, and explains the law

Role of prosecution

Presents the state's case against the accused by gathering evidence, questioning witnesses, and arguing for a guilty verdict.

Role of defence

Represents the accused, ensuring their rights are protected, challenging the prosecution's case, and presenting evidence for their defense.

role of jury

A panel of citizens that listens to evidence, determines the facts, and decides whether the accused is guilty or not guilty.

Actus reus

the physical act of the crime, such as issuing an unlawful threat, instigating a criminal action, or the failure to perform an action (bystander of a crime, or failure to report one)

Mens rea

the mental aspect of the crime, or the offender’s state of mind

doli incapax

A legal presumption that young children (aged between 10 and 14) cannot be held criminally responsible (cannot be blamed/punished for a crime) and may not understand the difference between serious and wrongdoing and mischief. 

for doli incapax to be valid, the prosecution must prove:

the child knew their actions were seriously wrong, not just naughty

doli incapax evidence used by prosecution

statements/admissions|behaviour(actions before and after event)|Expert evidence|Home and school background

Statements/admission

previous statements made by the child to prove they understood their actions

behaviour

actions before during and after the offence can show an insight into their understanding

prior criminal history

history of criminal behaviour suggest greater understanding of right and wrong

expert evidence

psychological or psychiatric assessment can help determine level of understanding and maturity

Home and school background

child's upbringing and school can offer insight into their moral development

Why should the minimum age be increased?

children’s brains have not fully developed at the age of 10, therefore younger children are incapable of forming proper decisions

Why should the minimum age be lowered/remain the same

keeps children accountable for their actions, each child’s mental maturity is different so some children may be able to comprehend their actions

presumption of innocence

the defendant is considered innocent of their charges, unless the prosecution can prove otherwise

goal of the youth justice system

ensures that underaged offenders are held accountable for their actions whilst promoting the child’s rehabilitation

hearsay

information that a witness obtained from an external source outside of the trial, and is therefore irrelevant