for laws to be effective, they must be accepted by the community.
- known to public - easy to understand and necessary
- reflect values of community
- consistent in content and application
- stable and capable of being enforced
Back
persuasive precedent
Front
those which are not binding, but to which respect is paid.
- from lower court in same hierarchy, or other court hierarchies
- eg Donoghue vs Stevenson's case influenced Aus. Grant vs AKM case
Back
negligence
Front
the failure of duty of care either through act or omission
Back
damage
Front
compensation for damage caused to plaintiff
Back
warden's court
Front
deals with proceedings relating to disputes over mining tenements in WA
Back
doctrine of precedent
Front
legal principle created by courts which allow judges to use past decisions to consider judgments for similar circumstances
Back
duty of care
Front
a moral or legal obligation to ensure the safety or well-being of others.
Back
WA Court Hierarchy
Front
High - Supreme - District - Magistrates - Family - Children's - Drug - Coroner's
Back
Why do we need a court hierarchy
Front
- EFFICIENCY: lower courts deal with less complicated matters
- to provide right of APPEAL: higher courts review decisions of lower courts
- PRECEDENTS: decisions of higher courts be used to bind/guide lower courts = consistency
- allows for SPECIALISATION
- giving administrative convenience
Back
difference between common and statute law
Front
common law are precedents set by previous cases and can be binding or persuasive. Statute law are laws created by parliament through legislation.
Back
Important cases that inspired Aus negligence laws
Front
Donoghue V Stevensons - decomposed snail
Grant V Australian Knitting Mills - demerits
Cole V South Tweed Heads Rugby Club - drunk, car hit
Strong V Woolworths - fell on chip
Back
political values
Front
based on concept of democracy - in Australia
- laws protecting us in work environment
- laws protecting consumers from dangerous products
Back
social values
Front
our public lives and the way we conduct ourselves with others
- respect for life
- freedom of speech
- anti-discrimination laws
Back
Allows for specialisation
Front
- courts develop expertise in jurisdiction
- lower courts familiar with minor cases
- higher courts expert in hearing complex cases
Back
defendant
Front
an individual, company, or institution sued or accused in a court of law.
Back
coroners court
Front
investigates reasons behind person's death
Back
moral values
Front
based on what society considers to be right
- respect the freedom and dignity of the individual
- freedom of religion
Back
tort of negligence
Front
a legal wrong where negligence is a failure of duty of care either through act or omission. It is a civil procedure
Back
tort
Front
a legal wrong
Back
common law
Front
law that is based on previous judgement of the courts and is also called Judge made law or Case law
Back
4 types of torts
Front
- negligence
- defamation
- nuisance
- trespass
Back
binding precedent
Front
One which the court must follow.
- decisions of higher courts in same hierarchy
- not bound by decisions of court of equivalent standing
Back
overcome precedent by disapproving:
Front
expressing an unfavourable opinion of legal principle
Back
civil procedures
Front
cases between individual
Back
Problems with a court hierarchy
Front
- confusing as to which court the case should be heard
- too many appeals
- everyone should have access to best judges
Back
good neighbour principle
Front
precedent set by the DvS - established the tort of negligence
Back
judges interpret legislation
Front
Courts apply general laws to specific cases by interpreting the meaning of legislation in light of specific situations in cases
Back
provides system of appeals
Front
- if dissatisfied with decisions made in lower court, can be appealed in higher court
- provides fairness, allows for mistakes to be corrected
Back
influences on the law
Front
should reflect community values
- moral values
- social values
- political values
- economic values
Back
ratio decidendi
Front
reason for the decision
Back
3 things need to be established to prove negligence
Front
1. Duty of care was owed by the defendant to the plaintiff
2. Duty of care was breached
3. Harm resulted because of the breach
Back
precedents
Front
* exclusively set by superior courts
* all lower courts are bound by the decision of higher courts in same hierarchy
* decisions by courts on the same level are not binding
* judges decisions based on ratio decidendi (reasons) and obiter dictum (argument) of previous court decisions
Back
stare decisis
Front
to stand by what has been decided
Back
major role of law
Front
- identify rights and responsibilities of citizens
- provides boundaries defining what's considered acceptable conduct
- resolves disputes, maintain order and punish offenders
- recognise moral, social, economic, cultural and political values
- helps facilitate change
Back
administrative convenience
Front
- court hierarchy allows for distribution of cases according to seriousness
- more serious and complex cases heard in higher courts
- minor cases heard quickly and cheaply in lower courts
Back
obiter dictum
Front
statements made by judges said in passing that are more observations/arguments about law
Back
how is common law made
Front
- courts always look if they can apply existing law.
- if not apply statute law
- use this law as a precedent
- use doctrine of precedents to make common law
Back
overcome precedent by distinguishing:
Front
involves looking at the facts of the case and finding material difference between them
Back
family violence court
Front
provide intervention to offenders with charges relating to domestic violence
Back
plaintiff
Front
a person who brings a case against another in a court of law.
Back
process of statute law
Front
pass bill in both houses. Law made by parliament called legislation, a statute or an Act.
Back
functions of the law
Front
1. maintain social cohesion and allow ppl to live together in harmony
2. Maintain order and provide punishment against those who break the law
3. allow change within society
Back
overcome precedent by overruling:
Front
when decision is binding on a lower court that decision must be followed
Back
overcome precedent by reversing:
Front
involves same case, firstly heard in lower court and the heard on appeal in higher court
Back
cultural values
Front
relate to people's way of life
- freedom to practice cultural beliefs
Back
Section 2
(8 cards)
supreme court
Front
general division: criminal division and civil division
criminal: criminal matters which carry life in prison as max penalty
civil: hears probate matters and civil claims more than 750 grand
appeals division: hears appeals from single judge decisions of supreme court, criminal matters from magistrate's court and civil appeals from district court
Back
drug court
Front
assist people whose offending behaviour is a result of entrenched drug use
Back
High court- federal court aus
Front
Hears matters relating to trade practices, mergers and misuse of market power
Back
children's court
Front
hears criminal matters for children aged between 10 and 17
Back
district court
Front
criminal division: jurisdiction to hear indictable matters punishable by max 20 years jail
civil division: hears civil matters for claims under 750 grand
Back
magistrates court
Front
minor cases heard
criminal division: maximum 3 years jail
civil division: civil claims under 75 grand
Back
High court - family court of wa
Front
although a state court, vested with both state and federal jurisdiction to hear matters relating to family law
Back
high court
Front
Original jurisdiction: hears matters regarding constitution and disputes between states
Appellate jurisdiction: hears appeals from original jurisdiction of high court, the federal courts and state supreme courts
Federal court of AUS and Family court of WA: