Section 4 Classification of Law Total marks 20 (a) What is the difference between common law and statute law? State four points of difference. (4 marks] (b) Outline the purpose of precedence. (3 marks) (c) Explain the difference between binding and persuasive precedent. (3 marks) (d) Outline the distinguishing features of criminal and civil law. (10 marks} saved to [h S -'L Section 5 Lawr Reform in Action Native Title Total marks 1'20 Mabo v Queensland 1992 In 1992, the High Court of Australia heard a case regarding Native Title. The case was bought forward by the Meriam people who claimed that the Queensland Government had acted illegally when they tried to take control of the Murray Island. The Murray Island are located off the Northern Coast of Queensland and were claimed to be inhabited the Indigenous population for thousands of years. Eddie Mabo led the case against the Queensland Government and in court submitted the following arguments; Firstly, the Meriam people were the original inhabitants of the land and had a cultural and spiritual connection to the land. Secondly, European civilisation did not extinguish native title, but merely suspended it, Thirdly; the Queensland Government had violated the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act as they did not pay compensation to the Meriam people for their loss. 0n the other hand, the Queensland Government argued the following; Firstly, the Murray Islands were 'Terra Nullius'. Secondly, the Aboriginal Native Title claim was a common law right which could be extinguished by an act of Parliament, therefore the Coastal Islands Declaratory Act passed by the Queensland Parliament was a valid exercise of power which allowed the government to take control of the Murray Islands. The High Court ruled in a 6-1 judgement that the land title of the Indigenous peoples is recognised at common law. The Indigenous Peoples native title stems from their use over land which pre-dates European colonisation of Australia. In the absence of an effective extinguishment by the crown, this title presents through inheritance the original occupants' right to possession of their traditional lands in accordance with their customs. The judgement has, at long last, rejected the notion of "Terra Nullius", bringing Australia almost in line with remaining common law countries, i.e. USA, Canada and New Zealand. Using the above information, your own knowledge and research, answer the following questions: (a) Identify the name of the case. (1 mark) (b) Define the term "Terra Nullius" (2 marks) (c) In which court was the case heard and how many judges heard the case. (2 marks) (d) Why did the Queensland government argue that the Murray Islands were "Terra Nullius"? ( 2 marks) (e) Identify the arguments put forward by the Meriam people. ( 3 marks) (f) Outline the final judgement. (3 marks) (g) After the Mabo judgement, the Federal parliament introduced two pieces of legislation. Identify these two pieces of legislation. (2 marks) (h) Discuss the impact of the above laws on the right of Aboriginal people to claim native title. ( 6 marks)Section 6 Contemporary Law Reform in Action Young Drivers and the Lawr Total marks i20 Young Drivers are becoming a greater menace on our roads. They ignore traffic laws and are putting lives at risk. The legal system needs to get tougher on young drivers, otherwise peoples lives will be put at risk". NS W Police Commissioner, Andrew Scipione You are to collect one article relating to young drivers and the law. (a) Provide the date and source for the newspaper article. (1 mark} (b) Write a synopsis {150 words) on the article (4 marks) (c) Why do young people commit more traffic offences and are involved in more car accidents. ( 5 marks) (d) Identify the legal methods introduced to deal with young drivers. {legal methods may include laws, government policy. police actions or court responses) (5 marks] (e) Asses how effective the introduced legal methods have been in making young people better drivers and the community safer. (5 marks )