LAW101 Donald Jones Case Study Sample

Foundations of Australian Law A  - Memorandum

To: Dr Dominique Moritz, Team Leader

From: [insert student name], Investigator

Date: Friday, 15 May 2020

Re: Mr Donald Jones – Conduct investigation

Australia is a federal system that considers the power of six states and a national government that is known as a commonwealth. Despite changes has been taken place in different places, Queens law can disallow to allow any state law as still British influence can be noticed. In the current study, the issue of the influence of the British Acts on Australian State law has been discussed. This case is showing several aspects of the Legal Service Act 2007 (UK) and it's the application on the state and territory. The case of Donald Jones and Eric Williams has been considered to identify the appropriate law.

Issue 1: Application of Legal Service Act 2007 (UK) for covering the conduct of Donald in Maroochydore police station

Sub issue

Donald has tried to conduct his friend’s legal case of drink and drive. However, it has been claimed by the police station that Donald is not a legal practitioner in Queensland, although, he was a legal practitioner in the UK. Therefore, the application of the Legal Services Act 2007 (UK) in Queensland has been analysed.

Rule

The Legal Service Act 2007 (UK) is an act of UK parliament that is the provision of professional practices in the UK. As per this act, an authorised person can act as per the legal proceedings independently. It has been noticed that, in Australia, the commonwealth law is the Judiciary Act 1903 that provides the lawsuit for pursuing legal practice. As the Maroochydore is situated in Queensland, the legal provision of Queensland can be only applied. However, in here, the Legal Service Act 2007 (UK) cannot be provided as the practitioners have lawsuit under only of Legal Aid Queensland Act 1997 and Legal Profession Act 2007. As per this act, the admission, regulation, pursuing of legal profession and entitlement under lawsuit is conducted. The members of the legal profession can be entitled only under this act. Therefore, the enforcement of the Legal Service Act (UK) is not effective in Queensland.

Application

In the current scenario, it can be stated that Donald cannot pursue his amendments without the registration under the Legal Profession Act 20071. Additionally, it is also not possible for them to pursue his professional practice under The Legal Service Act. In the case of Queensland, it is mandated to be registered under the concerned law. Any type of UK legal practitioner’s law is not approved under this state territory. Therefore, Donald’s claim is not being addressed and the supreme court of Queensland can sue him for breaching the conduct and dispute. On the other hand, in case of Gabriel Warden V Legal Services Board, the issue of defalcation of trust in the legal board can be also identified in which the practitioner has found not guilty by legal service board2. However, in the current case of Donald and Eric, the practitioner’s role cannot be achieved by Donald as he did not belong from Queensland or other regions of Commonwealth. Along with this, the UK legal practitioner’s law is not allowed or applied in Queensland. On the other hand, the case of Cohen v Legal Practitioners Admissions Board is showing the role of directorship and legal professionalism in a company is not an unlawful activity and a sole solicitor has also confirmed the effectiveness of his legal work3. Therefore, the Legal Professional Act can be only applied in this case. However, in the case of Watts v Legal Services Commissioner, similar issues can be noticed that has been resolved under the same act4.

Conclusion

Therefore, there is no way that Donald can pursue his professionalism under the Legal Profession Act 2007 in Queensland. The act of UK professional practice cannot be applied in the current case. If there should be an occurrence of Queensland, it is commanded to be enlisted under the concerned law. Any kind of UK lawful experts’ law is not affirmed under this state an area. In this way, Donald's case is not being tended to and the preeminent court of Queensland can sue him for penetrating the direct and debate.

Issue 2: Legal implication for having penalty of Drink and Drive penalties of Eric

Sub issue

The friend of Donald, Eric Williams has been caught by police due to the drink and drive case under the act of Transport Operation Act 1995 (Qld).

Rule

The act of Transport Operations Act 1995 (Qld) is a Road Use Management act which is developed for identifying road and driving issues. Section 79 of this law is showing the illegal aspects of drinking and driving. As Erik has conducted such actions of drink and drive, he could have penalties for that reason. However, this is to be done by analysing the breath and blood alcohol concentration (BAC). If the BAC is within 0.05 to 0.10, then he might have a maximum fine amount of 1,868 AUD and the cancellation of licence of about 1 to 9 months. If the BAC is within 0.10 to 0.15, then he might have a maximum fine amount of 2,669 AUD and the cancellation of licence of about 3 to 12 months. On the other hand, in case he has been caught of the BAC intoxication level of about 0.15, then he would have been having licence cancellation of about 6 months minimum and the penalty of about 3,736 AUD. This can be partnered in the event of Eric. Be that as it may, as the degree of inebriation has not been referred to, consequently, according to the inebriation level and drinking without appropriate concern, he can be sued under Transport Operations Act 1995 (Qld). Separated structure this, his companion Donald is not a legal practitioner of Queensland for discharging him.

Application

Several cases of drink and drive have been identified in which, the applicant of the cause has found not guilty. In a similar case of R v Harris; ex parte A-G (Qld), the plaintiff had a low amount of alcohol while driving under permissible level5. Therefore, the ex-parte has not had any claim of drink and drive issue and the case has been dismissed. Along with this, it has been also identified that, due to the drink and drive case, Woolens v The Commissioner of Police, due to intake of permissible amount of alcohol, the plaintiff has been bailed and the police commissioner has found nothing against the plaintiff regarding conducting any criminal offence while driving and drinking6. The demonstration of Transport Operations Act 1995 (Qld) is a Road Use Management act which is created for recognizing street and driving issues. Segment 79 of this law is demonstrating the unlawful parts of driving under the influence. As Erik has led such activities of drive drunk, he could have punishments thus. On the other hand, this is to be finished by examining the breath and blood liquor fixation. Along with this, in case of Sharp V Glass also, due to the intake of the high level of alcohol, the intoxicated driver has been put under the licence cancellation of about 12 months7.

This can be allied in the case of Eric. However, as the level of intoxication has not been known, therefore, as per the intoxication level and drinking without proper concern, he can be sued under the Transport Operations Act 1995 (Qld)8. Apart from this, his friend Donald is not effective for providing him bail. If there should be an occasion of Donald, regardless of being an authentic ace in the UK, the showing of the comparative law can't be driven by Donald because of the extraordinary strategies. The concerned individual, here Donald, must save certain law for enrolling him under the state legitimate educator. Near to this, accreditation is in like way required to search for after as a real guide. The issue of real self-evident aptitude has been recognized which has similar issues of accreditation. Thus, the thought of affirmation of Donald is required to fulfil the above stages.

Conclusion

Therefore, the monetary penalty along with the cancellation of licence for a certain period is to be conducted to Eric. Along with this, he will not get any kind of bail for the falsification and dispute of Donald.

Issue 3: Stringent requirement of engaging in legal practice in Queensland

Sub Issue: the legal policy of Queensland is quite stringent which provides a barrier in practising lawsuit. In the case of Donald, despite being a legal professional in the UK, the practice of a similar law cannot be conducted by Donald due to the stringent policies.

Rule

The main rule of conducting legal practice under this area is the requirement of inclusion of Queensland Law Society Administration Rule 20059. The concerned person, here Donald, must comply with certain law for registering him under the state lawyer. Along with this, certification is also required to pursue as a lawyer under s.49 of the Legal Profession Act 2007. Furthermore, it is likewise unrealistic for them to seek after his expert practice under The Legal Service Act. If there should arise an occurrence of Queensland, it is ordered to be enrolled under the concerned law. Any kind of UK legitimate specialists law isn't endorsed under this state an area. Consequently, Donald's case isn't being tended to and the incomparable court of Queensland can sue him for penetrating the lead and question. The lawful arrangement of Queensland is very severe which gives boundary in rehearsing claim. If there should be an occurrence of Donald, notwithstanding being a lawful expert in the UK, the act of the comparative law can't be led by Donald because of the severe approaches. The concerned individual, here Donald, must follow certain law for enrolling him under the state legal counsellor. Alongside this, an accreditation is likewise required to seek after as a legal advisor. Therefore, the following requirement is to be fulfilled:

• Approved degree of law
• Under supervised training, approved legal training
• Admission in the roll of Lawyers
• Certification

However, in the case of Donald, the overseas qualification must be judged under proper assessment criteria by filling information kit.

Application

In the case of R v Poynder, the issue of legal professional has been identified which has similar issues of certification10. For this reason, the inclusion of certification of Donald is required to fulfil the above stages. On the off chance that there ought to emerge an event of Queensland, it is requested to be selected under the concerned law. Any sort of UK real authority’s law isn't supported under this express a zone. Thusly, Donald's case isn't being tended to and the exceptional court of Queensland can sue him for infiltrating the lead and question. The legitimate game plan of Queensland is extreme which gives limit in practising guarantee. If there ought to be an event of Donald, despite being a legitimate master in the UK, the demonstration of a similar law can't be driven by Donald as a result of the extreme methodologies. The concerned individual, here Donald, must keep certain law for enlisting him under the state lawful instructor. Close by this, accreditation is in like manner required to look for after as a legitimate guide. The issue of legitimate demonstrable skill has been distinguished which has comparable issues of accreditation. Hence, the consideration of confirmation of Donald is required to satisfy the above stages

Conclusion 

Therefore, the inclusion of effective legislation is required instead of the stated UK act, the Queensland act is to be applied. Along with this, Erik might have the penalty and cancellation of his licence of the car due to the drink and drive issue. Donald has attempted to direct his companion's legitimate instance of the drive under the influence. Nonetheless, it has been asserted by the police headquarters that Donald is certifiably not a lawful specialist in Queensland, even though, he was a legitimate expert in the UK. In this way, the use of the Legal Services Act 2007 (UK) in Queensland has been broke down. In the event of Queensland, it is commanded to be enrolled under the concerned law. Any kind of UK legitimate professionals law isn't endorsed under this state an area. In this manner, Donald's case isn't being tended to and the incomparable court of Queensland can sue him for penetrating the direct and debate.

Remember, at the center of any academic work, lies clarity and evidence. Should you need further assistance, do look up to our Law Assignment Help