This assessment requires students to structure their written essay in three respective sections. Part 1 will test your skills on Statutory Interpretation, Part 2 will demonstrate your ability to brief a case, and Part 3 provides an opportunity to engage with scholarship and inject your own critical commentary on the case.
Each section offers an approximate word count and points that must be addressed. All sections must comply with AGLC3 citation (footnotes and headings do not form part of the Word Count).
Task : LAWS600 Core Skills Assignment
Part 1 – Statutory Interpretation
Locate (i.e., you won’t find it in your textbook or on this site) the reported version of the following case and respond to the questions below (approx. 1200 words):
| 1 State the legal issue requiring interpretation of the Medical Treatment Act 1988 (Vic). |
| 2 Correctly cite and explain (in your own words) the relevant provisions of the Medical Treatment Act 1988 (Vic) that the Supreme Court of Victoria needed to interpret in order to assess the claim raised by the guardian of BWV. (Do not copy the provision, except in the case of a definition). |
| 3 How would you describe the approach to statutory interpretation applied by the Court? |
| 4 Which principle(s) of statutory interpretation did the Court apply? |
| 5 What extrinsic sources did the Court refer to? |
| 6 How did these assist the court in interpreting the Act? |
| 7 What is an amicus curiae? Were there any in this case? Can anyone submit an amicus brief? |
| 8 What did the Court conclude? |
| 9 Do you agree with the decision? Provide reasons. |
| 10 Should the Victorian Act be amended? Provide reasons. |
ORDER This LAWS600 Core Skills Assignment NOW And Get Instant Discount
Part 2 – Case Brief
Write a Case Brief for Gardner; Re BWV (limit approx. 500 words):
| 1 Citation: Provide the correct citation (AGLC3) for Gardner; Re BWV. |
| 2 Jurisdiction: Correctly identify the Court (jurisdiction). |
| 3 Procedural History: Set out the procedural history for this case. |
| 4 Facts: Concisely state the relevant facts of this case. |
| 5 Issues: Set out the Factual and Legal Issues. |
| 6 Reasoning: Set out the Court’s Reasoning. |
| 7 Ratio: State the ratio of this case. |
| 8 Dicta: Provide two examples of obiter dicta from this case. |
| 9 Ruling: What was the Court’s ruling? |
Part 3 – Legal Scholarship and Effective Writing
Locate the following article and respond to the questions below (approx. 750 words):
Michael A Ashby and Danuta Mendelson, ‘Gardner; re BWV: Victorian Supreme Court makes landmark Australian ruling on tube feeding’ (2004) 181(8) Medical Journal of Australia 442.
| 1 Background (What was the motivation to write the article? For example, were there any legislative developments, judicial decisions, publicised event? Or, is the article a response to another published view?) |
| 2 About the Authors (Who are the authors? What is their ‘legitimacy’ or ‘authority’? — In other words, what are their credentials? You may wish to look this up) |
| 3 Issue (What issue are the authors writing about?) |
| 4 Claim (What are the authors arguing or advocating? Or, are they clarifying something or explaining a concept?) |
| 5 Authority supporting the Authors’ Claim (What other sources do the authors rely upon to support their claim or argument? This part requires you to actually set out the structure of the Authors’ argument. It also requires you to look up and verify the accuracy of references they use to support their argument. LOCATE, BRIEFLY SUMMARISE and CONFIRM whether the references cited by the authors support their argument. Do this for ONE other ariticle cited by the Authors; ONE foreign case cited by the authors; and ONE Australian statute or case cited by the authors.) |
ORDER This LAWS600 Core Skills Assignment NOW And Get Instant Discount