Australian Law: Legal System, Criminal Sentencing, Property Law, Insurance Contracts, Contract Law

Australian Law

Part A
In the new Constitution developed by the tribe, there are rules that protect members of the
tribe from violent acts from other members of the tribe. According to Herbert Lionel
Adolphus Hart, there are certain circumstances essential for the continued existence of legal
system. These circumstances are as follows:
 the ‘rules of behaviour’ applicable in relation to the ultimate criteria of legality of the
system must be followed;
 ‘rules of recognition’ mentioning the principles of legal authority
 ‘Rules of change’ and arbitration must be followed as general standards of public
regarding authorized conduct by its officers (Payne, 2009).
In the opinion of Hart, the primary rules are to be followed by the citizens as they are legally
obligatory. Also, the law officers have the authority to form new legal rules. If a concept of
legal system is desired which is not based entirely on power, the idea of normative rule is
required based on authority (MIT OpenCourseWare, 2012). However, normative rule
imposing obligation must justify itself tracing to the constitution.
The rules that protect the members of the tribe from such violent acts were developed with
the provisions of strict punishments to the wrong doers and the reason behind development of
such rules in the constitution is to maintain law and order in the tribe. All the authorized
individuals as well as the members of the tribe should follow the rules and regulations
established within the Constitution of the tribe. Such rules would forbid the individuals or
group of people to perform violent acts and would impose obligations on them. The
provisions of punishment on causing injuries to others would deter them from doing so. The
rules would exert coercive power upon individuals or group of people by the imposition of
penalties on non-compliance with various types of duties or obligations (Scott, 2004).

Part B
In UK, all criminal cases are started in a magistrate court, so once a person is held guilty of a
criminal offence, he/she is taken to magistrate court. However, magistrate court handles
summary offenses and either way cases only, such as assault, burglary or drug offences and
most serious offences known as indictable offences are taken to the Crown Court such as
murder, rape and robbery. In some cases, the magistrate court decides custody or bail for the
offender until next hearing. After final verdict, the magistrate court can give punishment of
imprisonment up to 6 months or at least 1 year in case the offender has committed more than
one crime. The court can also charge compensation, community sentence or applicability of
bans. The range of sentences given by Crown Court can include community sentences as well
as imprisonment which can even be life sentences as well (Gov.uk, 2018).
The Magistrate Court can order a term of imprisonment to the accused under the age of 21
years and the accused under the age of 17 years can be detained in a Youth Justice Centre.
The maximum imprisonment imposed by Magistrate Court can be 2 years for single offence
and aggregate total sentence can be 5 years. Criminal sentencing that can be given by the
courts include custodial sentences or imprisonment and non-custodial alternatives such as
orders or bonds (Edney, 2011).
The three parts of Hart’s Concept of Law include the Existence of legal System; the
Existence of Legal System in comparison with the concept of law i.e. Sartorius’s Critique of
Hart; and the rationale for minimum conditions. The laws imposing responsibilities upon the
individuals are known as ‘primary rules of obligation’ (Magistrates’ Court of Victoria, 2018).
The secondary rules are essential for providing reliable account of the- primary rules. It
enables the courts in resolution of disputes related to the imposition of primary rules.
However, the secondary rules comprises of rules of recognition, rules of change, and rules of
adjudication (Scott, 2004).

Part C
The decision of High Court in Gumland Property Holdings Pty Limited v Duffy Bros Fruit
Market (Campbelltown) Pty Limited [2008] is important for property-owners as well as
leaseholders, because the High Court supported the right of the property-owners to get hold
of damages, which include loss of bargain damages, subsequent to the termination for the
violation of essential and established term by the leaseholder (Gumland Property v Duffy
Bros Fruit, 2008).
Facts of Case
The landlord Transit Management Pty Ltd (Transit) had a grocery shop on rent in a shopping
complex. The renter Duffy Bros Fruit Market Pty Ltd (Duffy) took a 15 year lease of that
grocery rental from Transit in 1993. Since 1999, Duffy was having trouble in trade and was
not able to pay rent on time. Duffy and Transit signed a deed which provided that Transit
would make efforts to secure sub-tenancy of building, the liability for payment of sub-
tenancy rental fee remained to be the liability of Duffy, the rent out that was required to be
paid by Duffy as per the lease was decreased. Also, conditions of the lease were approved
and confirmed(High Court of Australia, 2008).It was established under the deed that if further
breaches of lease was not committed by Duffy, he would not have to pay full rent under the
contract of lease. In 2001, a part of the building was sold by Transit to Gumland. However,
the lease was not documented till 2005 (Lethlean, 2008). When the sub-lease expired in 2002,
the sub-tenant did not want to extent the lease for another year and therefore entered into
over-holding period. The sub-tenant started paying 50% if the rent that was required to be
paid under sub-lease because of which, Gumland claimed that Duffy breached lease as well
as deed and issued default notices and demanded payment of arrears. When payment was not
approaching, Gumland terminated the lease in 2003. Gumland sought amount of $2,096,514
along with interest from Duffy.