Search results

god i hope not that means i'll have to change the whole structure of my essay around grrrr i predict it'll be moral, ethics and values and issues and remedies

well since the laws were already there, and the gov. has refused to do anything then the laws 'have' responded in a sense. just think laterally hahaha

i think its Hohol v Hohol 1981 (de facto relationship) but Albany v Albany was precedent (i think) and it was upon the dissolution of marriage!

tort's NON CONTRACT law donoghue v stevenson was actually the precedent that established the privity of contract rule and the notion of manufacturer's product liability. therfore this case was a tort law, but cases after this should be contract. hope you get what i mean ;)

yup labour and liberal both supported this i found this on a GAY/LESBIAN support group, forgot what it was called just do a search and it should come up

i didnt think that was tested tho we covered that part of the syllabus in our first assessment task on juvenile offenders. thanks for typing that out panda ;)

which of the following statements best describes the concept of the rule of law (a)everyone must obey the law and no one is above the law (b)everyone must be heard by an unbiased decision maker and know the reason for the decision (c) and (d) are obvious wrongs hey there... A is rule of...

call me lost but what's this criminal law issue? do we have to specifically talk about one? or what? TIA :)

yeh but you need two i love it how these crime questions are so 'broad'... the idiot commits all the crimes known to man hahahha

yes, but im not usually used to doing it so rigidly :d

(b) Describes TWO legal measures Australian authorities could use to deal with international crimes identified in the scenario. - extradition - ICC (c) With reference to Toney and/or Sam, assess the effectiveness of the legal system in dealing with international crime. - talk about...

i would assume so since sexual assult is under that category

equity and equality isnt the same thing, dont confuse them together

id check the other thread but the general consensus there is that ratification into the aus legal system means support for it eg: signing the treaty etc and not necessarily adopting it into our domestic legal system

sure is woopsies ;)

justice incorporates the above elements just as someone has said, so i wont go into that. it is also an abstract concept that varies between cultures and between individuals. equality vs fairness: lets use johnny and bobby fairness -- johnny and bobby both get beaten up because they...

simply put... if we implement a bill of rights: it would be harder to change, say for example, the right to protect oneself with arms in USA - this creates more deaths than protects and has been in place since 1700's and hasnt been altered because of its complexity.

wtf i did the exact same question a while ago and it was "precedent" :-?

well, you'll have to refer to the 5 elements: - equality - fairness - access - equity - human rights and then talk a bit on each one! hth sweets

no biggie hun if its law and justice its usually: rule of law notion of justice few definitions equality vs. equity i'd rather law and justice... hate all the subjective bs that comes with human rights!