PAL Test 2 yr 10 2026

adversarial system, natural justice, case studies, mandatory sentencing, etc.

rule of law

principle that the law applies to everyone, even those who govern and no one is above the law

statute law

written legislation passed by parliament in the form of bills

common law

body of law created by Australian Courts and with the establishment of precedent that must be followed by future costs

features of criminal law

acts that harm society and is punishable by the state

criminal law case between

prosecution and defendant

criminal law burden of proof

lies on the prosecution to prove defendant's guilt

criminal law standard of proof

beyond reasonable doubt

features of civil law

covers disputes between citizens and companies

civil law case between

plaintiff and defendant

civil law burden of proof

rests of plaintiff to prove their claim

civil law standard of proof

balance of probabilities where the plaintiff must convince the court that their claim is more likely true than not

high court of australia

final court of appeal, handles constitutional matters

supreme court of western australia

highest state court, handles the most serious criminal cases

district court of western australia

intermediate court, deals with serious crime offences

magistrates court of western australia

handles majority of cases like minor offences and restraining orders

role of judge

ensures both parties follows rules of evidence and procedure, remains unbiased until all evidence is heard, determines appropriate punishment or compensation if defendant is found guilty

role of parties

initiate proceedings, investigate relevant law and evidence for their case, decide on evidence to be brought before the court, conduct their case with help of legal representative

rules of evidence

evidence is collected by parties, system mainly relies on oral evidence which have strict rules and procedures, evidence of bad character is admissible in a criminal trial, wtinesses are allowed to respond if asked a question

burden of proof

refers to the obligation placed on the prosecution or plaintiff to prove their claim and prove the facts of the case

standard of proof

refers to the level of certainty the evidence must reach to satisfy the judge or jury

retribution

punishment for committing a crime in order to right a wrong

deterrence

to discourage individuals from committing such crimes by making them think twice about the action

protection

protecting the society from dangerous offenders who are at risk of offending or causing harm to the society

rehabiliatation

reforming an offender to reduce the risk of reoffending

mitigating factor

any factors that reduce the culpability of the offender and the reason for the sentence to be reduced

aggravating factor

any factors that means the sentence should be increased in severity

totality principle

idea that the sentence given should reflect the seriousness of the crime but should not be too crushing

totality principle judge

required to ensure that the total effective sentence bears proper relationships to the overall criminality involved

sentencing options

imprisonment, fines, home detention and community service

imprisonment

custodial sentences to serve in prisons

fines

financial penalties for crimes

home detention

less risky offenders can stay at home and not be able to leave without permission

community service

unpaid work ordered by the court to do useful tasks for the public

advantages for mandatory sentence

ensures that individuals convicted of similar offences receive comparable sentences, deters general public from committing crimes

advantage MS example

in 2009, mandatory sentence was passed that gave a 6 months imprisonment on assulting police officers, made the rate of assulting officers drop by 30%

limitations mandatory sentence

judges are restricted from considering mitigating factors which undermines judicial independance, can lead to injustice against disabled people, Indigenous people and more

limitations MS example

zac grieves

zac grieves

convicted of murder for his involvement in a killing despite not being there, NT government's mandatory sentence of murder for non-parole 20 years (this included knowing about the murder but did not try to stop it)

key principles of natural justice

impartial adjudication, hearing both sides, evidence-based decisions, open trials

impartial adjudication

unbiased juries and judges

hearing both sides

right of both parties to be heard, requires everyone to have a right of legal representation

evidence-based decisions

in order to be just, court decisions must be made from evidence, what evidence can be included and considered is decided from the judges

open trials

decisions of the court can be scrunitised and helps public confidence in court, juries are a sign of open trials because they represent the public

bradley robert edwards

known as the 'Claremont Killer' where he had 3 murder victims but was guilty of two

edwards IA

undermined because there was only a judge and no public representation but if there was a jury the answer would have been biased

edwards HBS

upheld because both sides were allowed to speak, be heard and present their case

edwards EBD

upheld because evidence was placed in sterile containers and was not contaminated

edwards OT

upheld because the trial was very accessible, livestreamed, recorded through various media and spoken in basic english for everyone to understand

andrew mallard

had a miscarriage of justice where he supposedly killed Pamela Lawrence, a jewellery store owner

mallard IA

undermined because he was not told of his right to legal representation, only parts of his interrogation was recorded, and forced to confess a confession and was leaded along

mallard HBS

undermined because was not allowed to have legal representation, some of the interrogation was done in a mental facility with no support

mallard EBD

undermined because lots of his information was given to him through an undercover officer, their only evidence was that he was there during that time and had done petty crimes

mallard OT

upheld because information was upholded for the public to view

john button

had a miscarriage of justice where he supposedly killed his girlfriend via car

button IA

undermined because it was a coerced confession and had fabricated evidence

button HBS

undermined because was not told or given any legal representatives or acts of support, police pressured prosecutors to not use the evidence of the car because it would undermine their case

button EBD

undermined because there was no good evidence except the fact that he had a bump in his car from a few months ago but even after tests were ran, it showed that he wasn't the murderer

button OT

upheld because the public was allowed to see the trial however could not access the interrogation

juries

used an Ouija board to determine a killer in a case

juries IA

undermined because it disregardede the fact that jurors must be dispassionate and rational people

juries HBS

upheld because having juries meant that everyone could be heard and understood

juries EBD

undermined because they used an Ouija board to find out who caused the murder, used religion to give them an answer through an outside spirit

juries OT

upheld because having juries there meant the public could view and see it because they are repsentatives of the public

Witness K and Bernard Collaery

both convicted of treason for helping the opposition because of the Aus government's alleged spying on the nation

Collaery IA

undermined because the government wanted secret trials, and the public argued that the state was using its powers to retaliate against a whistleblower's lawyer

Collaery HBS

undermined because Collaery was facing charges he didn't know about, state restricted Collaery's ability to talk about to his legal representative and took 18 months for a legal representative to arrive because of national security checks

Collaery EBD

undermined because defence was not allowed to see, test or cross-examine any evidence against them, judges were not allowed to have a say and were forced to accept the claim and could not ask for evidence from the government

Collaery OT

undermined because many parts are still not revealed to the public, government had wanted a secret trial, Witness K was not revealed, and trial was closed so the public did not know what was going on