LAW

Name of Subject Coordinator: Assessment # - Subject Name and Session

Centre for Law and Justice Assessment Cover Sheet

Student name: Student number: Subject co-ordinator: Haley McEwen Subject code: LAW112 Word count: (excluding bibliography, header and footnotes) Due date: 5 February 2021 (include any relevant extension date here) Turnitin similarity percentage: Enter your Turnitin percentage here.

Student Number: 1

Name of Subject Coordinator: Assessment # - Subject Name and Session

Your answer will begin on this new page. Reference according to the AGLC an example is below. You can find more on the Law Library Resource Guide.

EG: Fraud is defined as any act by a person that involves obtaining the property of another or any financial advantage or causing financial disadvantage by deception or dishonesty.1

a. Relevant Legal Issue(s) (200) words

This question asks you to identify what were the legal issues for the parties. Identify the problem and what has gone wrong for whom. Name each party and describe their individual issues. What area of law may govern these issues? Identify any conflicting facts. Listing the issues means avoiding a ‘scatter gun’ approach to analysing and answering the question.

You only have 200 words so be concise. You are encouraged to examine any secondary resources around this decision or commentary on the decision prior to reading the case. This will help you distil the main issues.

By way of example of an outline, the below outline comes from Independent Commission Against Corruption v Cunneen (2015) 256 CLR 1.

In 2014, Deputy Senior Crown Prosecutor Margaret Cunneen SC and Stephen Wyllie, Ms Cunneen’s son, allegedly advised Sophia Tilley, Mr Wyllie’s partner, to present false chest pains to investigating police officers, at the scene of an accident, to avoid her blood alcohol level being obtained. Ms Cunneen, Mr Wyllie and Ms Tilley (“Respondents”) were alleged to have intended to pervert the course of justice. Under s 31(1) of the Independent Commission Against Corruption Act 1988 (NSW) (“ICAC Act”), the Independent Commission Against Corruption (“ICAC”) (“Appellant”), commenced a public inquiry to investigate the alleged conduct.

On appeal to the High Court of Australia (“HCA”), Counsel for the Appellant argued: 1. There was no justification for concluding that “corrupt conduct”, illustrated in s 8(2) ICAC Act, is limited.

2. The alleged conduct reflected “corrupt conduct”, under s 8(2). 3. Section 12A designated ICAC with extensive investigative powers.

However, the Counsel for the Respondents argued: 1. Under s 8 ICAC Act, the alleged conduct does not constitute “corrupt conduct”.

2. ICAC officiated a misuse of their investigative powers.

1 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s192E. Student Number: 2

Name of Subject Coordinator: Assessment # - Subject Name and Session

The legal issues presented to the HCA include the following: 1. If, under the ICAC Act, the alleged conduct constituted “corrupt conduct”.

2. The intended meaning of ‘adversely affect’, pursuant to s 8(2). 3. Whether ICAC’s investigative powers were misused.

The issues for both parties are outlined and the area of law is outlined. Use bullet points, or numbers etc.

b. Interpretive Criteria used by Deputy President Cole (900 words)

In this section you are being asked to outline what interpretative criteria was used by Deputy President Cole in her judgment.

At residential school we will examine the key interpretative criteria and what may be involved to interpret a statute. Review those notes when you attempt this question.

In this part you want to capture what interpretative criteria WAS used. The best answers would also address what was NOT used and why, and what else might be RELEVANT (not just a list of all that could have been used).

For example, you needed to identify any of the following criteria: intrinsic material, extrinsic material, any comparable common law cases, common law presumptions, international law, the Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW). It is also helpful to show that you know what terms like ‘intrinsic material’ and ‘extrinsic material’ mean.

By way of example, you might identify that:

Deputy President Cole relied upon the following interpretative criteria in reaching a decision in this case: • X (outlining what it is with references) • Y (“) • Z(“)

Remember, you are being asked to critically analyse.

c. Conclusion reached by the High Court (150 words)

Again, the word count here is very limited. The question is asking you to put in your own words what decision the Tribunal reached. This means identifying the ratio decidendi of the decision.

By way of example again, in the same case used above:

Student Number: 3

Name of Subject Coordinator: Assessment # - Subject Name and Session

The challenge to the constitutional validity of both ss 198AB and 198AD was unanimously rejected by the High Court, who held that laws providing for the deportation of refugees fall under the ‘aliens power’ in s 51(xix) of the Constitution. As for the plaintiff’s argument regarding the Minister’s designation, it was held that the only matter relevant was whether or not the country to be designated had given Australia the assurance set out in s 198AB(3) and this was not being contended. Finally, as for the argument that ministerial direction was invalid, the Court held that conditions that the taking direction places on removal ‘involved simple enquires and not an evaluative process’ and so was sufficiently specific to enable compliance.2

In your own response you would analyse at more length, the above is just over 100 words, the decision and the dissenting judgement.

d. Critical Commentary - in your opinion, would the outcome have differed if the applicants had been kidnapped from New South Wales, or if the offender lived in New South Wales when the case was determined? Give reasons for your answer (250 words).

This is your chance to demonstrate your understanding of the decision and ability to interpret the Act. You need to set out your reasons. You might have reference to the legislation or to judgements in related or comparable cases. You might refer to relevant commentary to support your opinion.

2 Ibid. Student Number: 4

Name of Subject Coordinator: Assessment # - Subject Name and Session

BIBLIOGRAPHY

To format your bibliography see AGLC4 Rule: 1.13, found on page 35-37 of the AGLC4. Remove any categories not used.

A Articles/Books/ Reports

B Cases

C Legislation

D Treaties

E Other

Student Number:

5