Category: Law

“Laws should be flexible enough to take account of various circumstances, times, and places.”—–
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.

Drawing from past experience and knowledge what makes for good family partnerships in regards to supporting advocacy?
I have high expectation about citation and references in valid articles

the Italian government’s new consorting offence Crimes act came into effect.
This offence makes it criminal for a person to habitually consort with convicted offenders after having been given an official warning in relation to those offenders.
The Ombudsman is required to undertake a three year review of the provisions, and is expected to release their final report in the near future.

You are required to write a submission to the Legislative Council Standing Committee on Law and Justice, that critically assesses the offence. Your submission must address the following:
• Identify and analyse the elements of an offence.
Consorting (1) A person who:
(a) habitually consorts with convicted offenders, and
(b) consorts with those convicted offenders after having been given an official warning in relation to each of those convicted offenders,
is guilty of an offence.
Maximum penalty: Imprisonment for 3 years, or a fine of 2000 penalty units, or both.
(2) A person does not habitually consort with convicted offenders unless:
(a) the person consorts with at least 2 convicted offenders (whether on the same or separate occasions), and
(b) the person consorts with each convicted offender on at least 2 occasions.
(3) An official warning is a warning given by a police officer (orally or in writing) that:
(a) a convicted offender is a convicted offender, and (b) consorting with a convicted offender is an offenc

D, discuss whether this offence reflects the purposes of criminal law.
Explain your reasoning by considering both related case law and relevant policy debates about effective and appropriate controls on consorting with convicted offenders.
PAPER REQUIREMENTS
 At the outset, read the question carefully and pay specific attention to the words used and what they require of you.

 This assignment requires research. Read generally on the topic – the unit materials and textbooks are a good starting point. Note the pointers they provide to important primary and secondary sources of law, and locate and read what you deem necessary. Undertake further research to identify other persuasive resources. Be mindful that this is a 2000 word essay, not a mini-thesis – so the research process should not become a huge task. The research you undertake must uncover information that is accurate, relevant and up to date – and legally compelling.

 The focus of the course is NSW, as is this assignment question. Of course what has happened in other jurisdictions (cases, legislation, reform recommendations etc etc), may also be important as comparison.

 Ensure that you properly reference in the footnotes the sources of all information that is not your own – not merely the words of others you may have quoted, but also their ideas. If you plagiarise, you will perish. Utilise the ideas of others to support your argument – do not merely summarise those ideas.

 Think about what you want to establish, why and how – and prepare an Outline of your arguments. The essay must not be merely an attempt by you to write everything you know about the topic. Ensure in your outline that you are creating a logical flow to your argument. Decide on an effective beginning and ending to your essay. Once you are reasonably content with your outline, move on to the essay writing.

 In your Introduction:

1. Provide a context to your discussion.
2. Present your thesis, the argument/s you will be making.
3. Clearly set out the parameters of your discussion – if topics will not be included, state that fact.
4. Consider offering a brief outline of the structure of your essay.
 In the Body of your essay: You will need to demonstrate that you have a sound understanding of the topic under discussion, and that your arguments are clearly and persuasively presented. Ensure you do not neglect to consider alternative arguments.

 In your Conclusion: Provide a brief overview of your essay and reiterate the main argument you have proposed.

 In general:
• You must present an essay that is well researched and rigorously referenced, and that has no problems with spelling or grammar.
• Proof-read thoroughly the essay you submit.
• Given the word length, you will still need to be precise and concise.
Currently 2 writers are viewing this order

Please write a 3 page case Brief on APA style 3 additional web page citations besides the book.
Motorists Mutual Insurance Co. v. Richmond

Directions and Elements of a Case Brief Below
Directions for Case Briefs
Congratulations! You are going to write a case brief. What does this mean?
Your case brief has four main components.
Facts: What happened that lead up to the legal dispute. This is the real life stuff. Keep is short, to the point and no personal comment sin this section. I do not want your opinion here.
Issue: What was the LEGAL issue? What was the Court trying to decide? This is usually only one or two key questions. I know it’s ironic that the judge writes pages and pages to describe one or two key questions, but that’s the point. Can you wade through all that writing to figure out that is the POINT? Again, keep it brief and no personal comments.
Holding: What did the Court decide, and WHY? The BIG question is WHY? I really want to know the reasoning, the justification, the excuse for the Court’s decision.
Opinion: This is YOUR opinion. Don’t hold back. THIS is where you tell me what YOU think. DO you agree with the Court’s decision or not? And please tell me WHY you agree or disagree. NO points for just saying, “I agree”……. Really, that’s zero points.

Elements of a Brief
A brief is primarily a self-teaching tool; as such, you should structure them to meet your own needs. Many formats have been proposed by various writers. The method to use is the one that makes the most sense to you. For an introductory law class, the purpose of a brief is more limited than for either a law student or a lawyer. Also, a brief should be brief! A long brief eliminates the most important role of a brief: the boiling down of a complex case to its essence.
Several basic components of a brief are present in almost all brief styles. If your brief style includes the following elements, you should do well:
• Facts
• Issue or issues
• Holding, including the rule of law and the Court’s Rationale
• Opinion- Your Opinion.
Facts
State the facts of the case in your own words. Indicate which facts are operative, and which bear on the issues to be decided. Do not just repeat the judge’s words. Be brief. Often a sign of how well you understand the case is your ability to identify the relative importance of facts. Some cases may have many extraneous facts that do not need to be in your brief. Most certainly, some facts will be more important than others. Your task is to frame the problem by describing the facts that count, the ones that matter.
Issue
Issue spotting is the skill of recognizing in the facts a pattern that implies a certain type of issue. For instance, facts that describe two people both claiming ownership rights over a chair should spotlight an issue of ownership of personal property. In reading cases, often the parties and the court do this work for you. Ask yourself what legal questions are posed by the appealing party. The appealing party is alleging that an error of law was made. What is that error? What question is the court answering? Sometimes a court will see the issue differently than the parties and present a different twist on the issue. State the issue cleanly and crisply. Avoid stating it in technical or procedural terms. Some believe that beginning your issue statement with “Whether” will allow you to focus your statement.
Example: Whether Smith established legal ownership of the chair by physically possessing it for seven years.
Holding
What is the ruling by the court? Who won? Answering these questions forces you to identify the outcome of the case. You must understand the procedural setting enough to know what happens as a result of the decision. For instance, if the court rules “in favor of the appellants,” what does this mean? More importantly, you need to find the holding on the issue itself. How did the court decide the issue? What rule of law is provided by the case? Using the chair ownership example from above, a holding that resolves the issue might be:
Example: The court found that Smith had not established ownership of the chair by virtue of possessing the chair for seven years.
Notice how the above statement ignores who owns the chair. A newspaper headline would be more focused on the personal story: “Smith Loses Chair to Green.” In briefing a case, however, you are not a reporter; you are a student of the law. For that reason you must stick to the issue and its resolution as the primary focus.
Rationale (Included in the holding section)
The length of each part of the case brief need not be evenly distributed. In fact, the rationale section is usually the longest section. In the rationale section you explain why the court ruled the way that it did. This means that you need to describe the court’s reasoning, sometimes even quoting the court’s choice of words. You also must explain which facts the court depended upon and which ones it discounted or ignored. You should also note what prior decisions it looked at and whether it chose to follow them, overrule them, or differentiate them. The court might also interpret or cite particular statutes or other laws in reaching its decision. Finally, notice whether the court relies upon public policy to reach its decision. Thus the potential components to a court’s rationale include:
• Facts: which ones were dispositive and which ones not
• Prior cases that were followed, differentiated, or overruled
• Statutory law and how it was interpreted
• Public policy principles
Your task is to organize these components and explain how the court used them to reach its decision. You are trying to find the rule of law that may flow from this case. The rule of law is the “why” of the decision, not the “what.” This is very important, as unless you can determine the why of a case, it is very difficult to use the case to predict the outcome of similar disputes when they arise.
Returning to the chair ownership issue above, the holding does not tell us the “why” and, as such, it is not really that useful. The rationale of the court, however, might describe how the court relied upon a long history that ownership is not automatically determined by mere possession, but instead depends on how possession and control was lost by a previous owner.
Opinion
Did you agree or not? When would you agree? When would you NOT agree? What was compelling about this case that forced you to choose one way or another? What policy or theory are your supporting with your decision?

This is a Case Report, it has to be 1500 words.
as you completed this essay on the prevalence of anxiety and depression in Aboriginal community in Australia ,so it is related to same study/case.
as one of the headings is prevalence of the condition so you can mention about the anxiety and depression in that and may be can talk a little about other conditions as well which are mentioned in the case.
Headings for the Case Report

1. Summary of the Case
2. Prevalence of the condition/s within the Aboriginal population
(You can mention the same as anxiety and depression prevalence as well)
3. Risk factors and the relationship between these and the Aboriginal population
4. Communication issues highlighted in the Case
5. Historical/Political/Cultural Issues highlighted in the Case
Please read the following case along with the transcript.
CASE:
TRANSCRIPT:

My name is Jean Jerry. I am an Aboriginal man from Tamworth NSW. My tribe is Gamiliroi. I am 52 years old and I have lived in Qld since I was 15 years old.

The main health issue for me, at the moment, is eczema or psoriasis. In my early years around about 16 or 18 I started contracting epilepsy, that also runs in the family. The epilepsy started to ease off a bit but then the psoriasis started, and I have had it all my life ever since.

I saw my dermatologist and said there were four types of treatments. First was UV, a little machine they put you in and you get sun burned. I was also on two lots of tablets and the ointment.

I can tell the tablets started to help a bit but one is a strong tablet and you have to get checked up every six months for your kidneys.

I have to see another dermatologist at the PA and that doctor will decide about a treatment that is a needle. I think it is a once monthly, or twice monthly needle.

The main trigger for the psoriasis is stress. I am a stress addict. Anything that happens I’m just stressed to the max. Doctors asked me to see other Doctors as well. They asked am I worried about anything? I do worry. The doctors focus around everything: anxiety, depression. I always think, “Where is this coming from?’

I go to a psyche doctor and he reports to my local GP. He is helping but I still stress big time.

Back in 2011 I was on the Gold Coast and on the way home my partner and I had a car accident. I landed in Robina hospital with back damage. That lasted for years. I went to a doctor with pain from the back and he said he would do a cortisone injection into my back. I said, “Well don’t put me way out – just numb me, because me and anesthetic don’t mix”. My partner also told him that. He said, “no, no we will do as you say”. But he gave me a full anesthetic.

Coming out of that anesthetic I went into two epileptic fits. By the time they got me down into ICU I went into another epileptic fit. So what I am hearing from family is that I had four epileptic fits in Robina. They transferred me over to the Gold Coast hospital, still in a coma because that is where the neurosurgeons were. I was in the induced coma for ten days. They say they lost me twice and the doctors brought me back. They called the family meetings and said, “If Jean doesn’t come out of the coma you could lose him, or he could be a vegetable”. When I hear things like that it stresses me. The stress levels go right up.

My sister passed away at 8 from an epileptic coma, and my mum and dad have passed on. When I was in that coma I saw Mum and Dad and I heard bells. Well that will be because I was on life support. I could see Mum running to the nurse. On the other side of me was my dad and my younger sister. She was touching me just lightly on the hand.

I told my cousin later and he said, “Were you scared?” I told him, well no I wasn’t because I knew it was my Mum, Dad and my sister.

There are three questions for this exercise. When answering the questions, please use references to legal cases, legal concepts and/or
statutes.

(1) Peter orally promised Ernie that if Ernie quit his job to care for Peter, who was elderly and ill, Ernie would receive Peter’s real estate
at Peter’s death. Ernie quit his job and cared for Peter until Peter died two years later. No will or deed was found. Assuming that Ernie lived
on the property before Peter’s death, is Ernie entitled to Peter’s real estate?
(2) Hilda, a widow, lives on a 500 acre farm worth $500,000. She has one son, Jim. To avoid probate, Hilda has decided to deed the farm “to
Hilda and Jim as joint tenants with rights of survivorship and not as tenants in common.” What potential problems might arise from this
arrangement? Why
(3) The Farringtons entered into a signed agreement to sell their real estate to the Tucsons. The price was stated in their agreement as
follows: “Sum of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000). Approximately one-third down, the balance to be paid over a period of 10 years at 7%
interest. This option to expire in 30 days. One hundred dollars ($100) to be paid at time of agreement with said amount to be applied on
purchase price.” Is this an enforceable agreement? Why or why not

You have been employed to be part of a new team at the Victorian Office of the Legal Services Commissioner. The Legal Services Commissioner
is very keen to be proactive in raising the standards of the legal profession, and he is eager to be fully informed about current issues
pertaining to contemporary legal practice, especially under the Uniform Law.

The Legal Services Commissioner wants to publish a series of discussion papers in order to promote discussion on a range of issues that
affect legal practice now and in the forseeable future. He is acutely aware that there is a range of conflicting views within the legal
profession, about many of these issues and room for improving legal service delivery.

You are asked to write a discussion paper (500 words excluding footnotes and bibliography) focusing on the Uniform Law.
In the discussion paper you are expected to:
• Consider, generally, the Uniform Law
• Select topic of ADMISSION pertaining to the regulation and operation of the legal profession and analyse how the Uniform Law changes
or does not change the operation and regulation of the legal profession.
• Detail what you recommend should be the Commissioner’s stance or view on the topics
• Present arguments for the future direction of the legal profession as it relates to the topics, and any changes to current law or
thinking that you recommend
• Research your paper by using a range of resources including relevant legislation, cases, rulings of disciplinary tribunals,
commentary in professional journals, academic writing and newspapers.

Topic: critical commentary/summary paper

critical commentary/summary on TWO of the topics

• What does Luhmann mean by approaching law as an ‘autopoietic system’?
• Explain the way in which Luhmann sees the legal system as both ‘operationally
closed’ and ‘cognitively open’. Can you think of counter- examples, such as when
the legal system is not operationally closed at all?
• In his systems-theoretical approach to society as a whole, do you think that
Luhmann accords a special place to law, and how would you explain what is
distinctive about it?
• How does ‘structural coupling’ work, what is the relationship between law and
politics, law and the economy, law and civil society?
• Do you think Luhmann’s approach is too abstract? What place does it give to
human action?

• What is Bourdieu referring to when he speaks of ‘fields’?
• How would you explain what the ‘field of law’ is, and how does it relate to other
social fields?
• What does the concept of ‘legal habitus’ refer to?
• “… the law has its own complex, specific, and often antagonistic relation to the
exercise of power” (Terdiman, p. 808). Can you think of any examples?
• Take one recent major legal development and explain how it would be
understood differently if approached in terms of Bourdieu’s strategic analysis.

Assessment criteria:
The mark for this component of assessment constitutes 10% of
the overall mark for the module.
Assessment criteria:
 Conduct: courtroom manner and etiquette.
 Delivery: presentation and clarity of speech, including suitability of
 Authority: use made of each authority or other literature cited.
 Interventions: ability to deal appropriately with judge’s
interventions.
 Demonstrate an understanding of the law on the partial defence of
loss of control.
This component counts for 10% of the final marks for this module.
The moot will be delivered by each student individually. One student
will act for the prosecution (respondent) and one will be acting for the
defence (appellant).
Each student will have 10 minutes to make a submission.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
R v Flo Pritchard
Flo Pritchard has been in a volatile relationship with Gordon for 12 years. Gordon is
regularly abusive towards Flo, subjecting her to physical violence and rape. As a
result of many years of physical abuse, Flo suffers from depression and she has been
battling alcoholism for the past 9 years.
One evening, Gordon comes home from work in a temper. When she asks him how
his day was, he shouts at Flo and tells her to mind her own business. He then tells her
that she had better keep out of his way or she’ll be “in for a hiding later”. Terrified, Flo
disappears into the kitchen. She can hear Gordon moving around in the living room
and then she hears him put on the television. After a few hours, all has gone quiet and
Flo decides to risk coming out of the kitchen. She notices that Gordon has fallen
asleep on the sofa. She then goes back into the kitchen and grabs a carving knife.
She approaches Gordon quietly and stabs him in the chest three times. He dies as a
result.
Flo was charged with murder and tried at the Crown Court at Greenwich. She sought
to rely on the defence of loss of control. The trial judge, His Honour Judge Benny,
ruled that the partial defence of loss of control was not available to the defendant
because there was a cooling off period between the provoking words or conduct and
ruled that the partial defence of loss of control was not available to the defendant
because there was a cooling off period between the provoking words or conduct and
the killing. The jury convicted the defendant of murder. The defendant now appeals to
the Court of Appeal against her conviction on the ground that His Honour Judge
Benny erred in withdrawing the defence of loss of control from the jury’s
consideration. A cooling off period does not preclude the defence of loss of control,
and the defence should have been available in this case.
Your task is to deliver a moot for either the prosecution or the defence arguing in
respect of Flo’s liability. You must explain the basis for your arguments fully in this
moot.
A skeleton argument is basically a page or two outlining your case; who you are, what your submissions
are and which authorities you will be using.
Etiquette
Do remember that these are guidelines as to what is the correct procedure of a moot.

LAW 201- hrm and law
INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT
(Maximum 2000 words

Your individual field work activity will involve attending the Fair Work Tribunal/Fair Work Australia (FWA), hearing and explaining a case, discussing the business ethics it raises, and detailing the process of dispute resolution in a report. The report will require you to research, review and comment on the relevant law, related business ethics, and the form of dispute resolution associated with the case you heard.

The format of your report will be
Assessment Criteria

Evaluate FWA- 20%
Discuss the ethical issues in the observed case- 10%
Identify the facts of the observed case- 10%
Illustrate the relevant law relating to the observed case- 20%
Appraise the legal arguments of Counsel in the observed case-20%
Assess the judgement of the observed case-20%

TOTAL
100%
*APA REFERENCING