TUTORIAL ACTIVITY 1     3%      150 words max. Due 9/8/2015

Read through R v Smith (2001) 206 CLR 650 following the process below. If you’ve already read through in detail – that’s ok as this case will be part of the case analysis assessment task.
Write no more than 150 words on what the case is about. (Avoid just summarising the facts).

This may assist you in reviewing Smith v. The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 650 http://www.judicialcollege.vic.edu.au/eManuals/UEM/index.htm#28605.htm

Reading cases
Case law uses technical jargon and judges often use complex words and phrases instead of simple ones, which can make it difficult to follow what’s going on. You might have to read sentences and whole paragraphs over again to understand what you’re reading.
This task is about getting the general idea or overview of a case, without getting too involved in the legal issues. Pre-reading and skimming skills are really useful to practice.

Quick read through:  (DON’T HIGHLIGHT)
1    Read the title of the case underneath the name of the court and see whether this is an appeal or the trial.
2    Read the Catchwords – often, there is enough information in here to get a reasonable idea of what the case is about and what the court decided
3    Read the first few couple of paragraphs to get an idea of who the parties are and why the matter came to court. Usually cases/judgments will give a brief history in the opening.
4    Skim the different judgements and see which are majority judgements (ie where the majority of judges agree or combine to write a judgement together) and which are minority judgements
5    Read the last couple of paragraphs of the majority judgement so you know what the court decided.
If you know the outcome, it makes it easier to understand what is happening when you go back to re-read the case in more detail. The court will usually talk about a whole range of legal concepts but only a couple may actually be important for the case – knowing the outcome helps you narrow what you need to read.
You don’t need to spend time working out what new words mean at this point.
Skimming (YOU CAN HIGHLIGHT HERE)
6    Now that you’ve flicked through it as a pre-read, you can skim. You’re looking for the main ideas. You can work out which paragraphs, and sometimes pages, you can leave out. If there is more than one judgement, you’ll notice that most of the judges like to go over the history of a particular legal rule so you’ll be able to skip over any repeat material. When you skim, you don’t need to read every word.
7    Read the first sentence (topic sentence) of each paragraph (depending on how the judge writes, this might be the last sentence – eg if he/she takes a while to get to the point) and drop down through the paragraph looking for key bits of information.

Skipping material
Often, you can skip:
•    Historical background of a particular rule or concept (unless really relevant to the issues)
•    Discussions about other legal concepts that don’t appear to be relevant to the concept the court is really there to talk about
Examples- eg from other cases if you already understand the concept.

Tutorial Activity 2; 3% 150 words max

Read through Papakosmas v The Queen (1999) 196 CLR 297 following the processes from last week in tutorial 1. Write no more than 150 words on what the case is about. (Avoid just summarising the facts).

TUTORIAL ACTIVITY 3; 3% Legislation quiz
Go to the electronic versions of R v Smith (2001) 206 CLR 650 and Papakosmas v The Queen (1999) 196 CLR 297. These are available in Blackboard under the case analysis assessment task. Click on the linked  sections under CATCHWORDS in BOTH cases eg   (NSW), ss 9, 55, 56, 59, 66, 136.

Go to the quiz:  Tutorial Activity 3 quiz below and answer the questions. There are 10 true false/short answer questions for a total of 3%

Tutorial activity 6

Choose either of these scenarios and apply the IRAC formula to provide an outline for your response. You only need to use bullet points.  Max 150 words

Mark and Ian are on trial for the shotgun murder of Ed.  Ian has one prior conviction for robbery and Mark has several previous convictions for assault and one for possession of an unlicensed firearm.

1.    Ian will give evidence that Mark had accidentally shot Ed while Mark was cleaning Ian’s gun in the garage of his home.  Ian claims there was a fault with the firing mechanism of his gun. Discuss any consequences if Ian gives evidence in these terms
2.    Mark will give the following evidence:
‘We’d been playing cricket and came back for a few drinks. We had quite a bit to drink because of the heat. I can hold my liquor but Ian has a problem with his temper when he is drunk. He can get very aggressive. I was holding his gun and offered to clean it for him but he pulled it out of my hands and started fiddling around with it. Ed wanted to have a look but Ian started to get angry. That’s when I grabbed my cricket bat and left. I’m a peaceful sort of person and I could see that there was going to be some trouble. Obviously, he planted the gun in my car.’ Discuss the consequences if Mark gives evidence in these terms.

Tutorial activity 7
Apply the IRAC formula to provide an outline for your response. You only need to use bullet points.  Max 150 words

Bill and Ted are brothers and are both partners in an accountancy business. Due to the brothers’ joint uninsured investment in a pine plantation that burned down one day they are in serious financial trouble until their elderly Uncle Tom dies on 16th January, 2005 leaving them his entire estate. Tom’s brother was suspicious of his death and as a result, an autopsy revealed that Tom died as the result of excess digitalis, which is extracted from fox gloves, a common garden flower that the prosecution will claim grew profusely in Ted’s garden. Digitalis is used medicinally in controlled doses to stimulate the heart muscle. Ted is subsequently charged with Tom’s murder.

The prosecution case is that Ted had invited Tom over for dinner at Ted’s house on 14th January 2005 and that Ted hid foxglove leaves in a mixed salad. Subsequent investigation discovers that Frank, an accountant from a neighbouring firm who advised Bill and Ted to invest in the ‘sure fire’ pine plantation, was hospitalised two days after the plantation burned down. Examination indicated excessive consumption of digitalis. Police then re-investigated the death of John, Bill and Ted’s father who had died eighteen months earlier leaving all his estate to his sons. John had taken digitalis under prescription for a heart condition. His death had been taken to be suicide as the contents of his stomach had revealed he had consumed more than 20 times his recommended dose and he had been under treatment for a depressive illness.

Can the prosecution lead evidence of Frank’s hospitalisation and John’s death? What   objections could be made to this evidence?

TUTORIAL ACTIVITY 1     3%      150 words max. Due 9/8/2015

Read through R v Smith (2001) 206 CLR 650 following the process below. If you’ve already read through in detail – that’s ok as this case will be part of the case analysis assessment task.
Write no more than 150 words on what the case is about. (Avoid just summarising the facts).

This may assist you in reviewing Smith v. The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 650 http://www.judicialcollege.vic.edu.au/eManuals/UEM/index.htm#28605.htm

Reading cases
Case law uses technical jargon and judges often use complex words and phrases instead of simple ones, which can make it difficult to follow what’s going on. You might have to read sentences and whole paragraphs over again to understand what you’re reading.
This task is about getting the general idea or overview of a case, without getting too involved in the legal issues. Pre-reading and skimming skills are really useful to practice.

Quick read through:  (DON’T HIGHLIGHT)
1    Read the title of the case underneath the name of the court and see whether this is an appeal or the trial.
2    Read the Catchwords – often, there is enough information in here to get a reasonable idea of what the case is about and what the court decided
3    Read the first few couple of paragraphs to get an idea of who the parties are and why the matter came to court. Usually cases/judgments will give a brief history in the opening.
4    Skim the different judgements and see which are majority judgements (ie where the majority of judges agree or combine to write a judgement together) and which are minority judgements
5    Read the last couple of paragraphs of the majority judgement so you know what the court decided.
If you know the outcome, it makes it easier to understand what is happening when you go back to re-read the case in more detail. The court will usually talk about a whole range of legal concepts but only a couple may actually be important for the case – knowing the outcome helps you narrow what you need to read.
You don’t need to spend time working out what new words mean at this point.
Skimming (YOU CAN HIGHLIGHT HERE)
6    Now that you’ve flicked through it as a pre-read, you can skim. You’re looking for the main ideas. You can work out which paragraphs, and sometimes pages, you can leave out. If there is more than one judgement, you’ll notice that most of the judges like to go over the history of a particular legal rule so you’ll be able to skip over any repeat material. When you skim, you don’t need to read every word.
7    Read the first sentence (topic sentence) of each paragraph (depending on how the judge writes, this might be the last sentence – eg if he/she takes a while to get to the point) and drop down through the paragraph looking for key bits of information.

Skipping material
Often, you can skip:
•    Historical background of a particular rule or concept (unless really relevant to the issues)
•    Discussions about other legal concepts that don’t appear to be relevant to the concept the court is really there to talk about
Examples- eg from other cases if you already understand the concept.

Tutorial Activity 2; 3% 150 words max

Read through Papakosmas v The Queen (1999) 196 CLR 297 following the processes from last week in tutorial 1. Write no more than 150 words on what the case is about. (Avoid just summarising the facts).

TUTORIAL ACTIVITY 3; 3% Legislation quiz
Go to the electronic versions of R v Smith (2001) 206 CLR 650 and Papakosmas v The Queen (1999) 196 CLR 297. These are available in Blackboard under the case analysis assessment task. Click on the linked  sections under CATCHWORDS in BOTH cases eg   (NSW), ss 9, 55, 56, 59, 66, 136.

Go to the quiz:  Tutorial Activity 3 quiz below and answer the questions. There are 10 true false/short answer questions for a total of 3%

Tutorial activity 6

Choose either of these scenarios and apply the IRAC formula to provide an outline for your response. You only need to use bullet points.  Max 150 words

Mark and Ian are on trial for the shotgun murder of Ed.  Ian has one prior conviction for robbery and Mark has several previous convictions for assault and one for possession of an unlicensed firearm.

1.    Ian will give evidence that Mark had accidentally shot Ed while Mark was cleaning Ian’s gun in the garage of his home.  Ian claims there was a fault with the firing mechanism of his gun. Discuss any consequences if Ian gives evidence in these terms
2.    Mark will give the following evidence:
‘We’d been playing cricket and came back for a few drinks. We had quite a bit to drink because of the heat. I can hold my liquor but Ian has a problem with his temper when he is drunk. He can get very aggressive. I was holding his gun and offered to clean it for him but he pulled it out of my hands and started fiddling around with it. Ed wanted to have a look but Ian started to get angry. That’s when I grabbed my cricket bat and left. I’m a peaceful sort of person and I could see that there was going to be some trouble. Obviously, he planted the gun in my car.’ Discuss the consequences if Mark gives evidence in these terms.

Tutorial activity 7
Apply the IRAC formula to provide an outline for your response. You only need to use bullet points.  Max 150 words

Bill and Ted are brothers and are both partners in an accountancy business. Due to the brothers’ joint uninsured investment in a pine plantation that burned down one day they are in serious financial trouble until their elderly Uncle Tom dies on 16th January, 2005 leaving them his entire estate. Tom’s brother was suspicious of his death and as a result, an autopsy revealed that Tom died as the result of excess digitalis, which is extracted from fox gloves, a common garden flower that the prosecution will claim grew profusely in Ted’s garden. Digitalis is used medicinally in controlled doses to stimulate the heart muscle. Ted is subsequently charged with Tom’s murder.

The prosecution case is that Ted had invited Tom over for dinner at Ted’s house on 14th January 2005 and that Ted hid foxglove leaves in a mixed salad. Subsequent investigation discovers that Frank, an accountant from a neighbouring firm who advised Bill and Ted to invest in the ‘sure fire’ pine plantation, was hospitalised two days after the plantation burned down. Examination indicated excessive consumption of digitalis. Police then re-investigated the death of John, Bill and Ted’s father who had died eighteen months earlier leaving all his estate to his sons. John had taken digitalis under prescription for a heart condition. His death had been taken to be suicide as the contents of his stomach had revealed he had consumed more than 20 times his recommended dose and he had been under treatment for a depressive illness.

Can the prosecution lead evidence of Frank’s hospitalisation and John’s death? What   objections could be made to this evidence?