Bigamy Case

Posted on Updated on

Case scenario:

Ali Mohammed is married to Eileen Mohammed but wants to keep her as the wife and marry Susan Grey as his second wife without being divorced. He then marries Susan now he has two wives.

Ali Mohammed met recently divorced Australian Fantasia Means, who now he wants to make her his third wife but still married to his other wives. He now has moved to Australia with his first two wives.

The above character’s in the scenario is fiction.But the law of Bigamy is Non-Fiction ( True Law Act)

I am going to discuss the law of the Bigamy in Australia, What is Bigamy you ask?

Well, Bigamy is the act of marrying someone a second time even though you are legally married to another person.

Within the Marriage Act under Bigamy is Illegal in Australia and after recent discoveries, why hasn’t the law put in the consequences within Bigamy for these so called Frauds. Under this law the sequences in breaking this law, the punishment is Imprisonment for five years.

So with the latest rumours going on what is the law doing, these people should be punished within the law.


Law of Evidence

Posted on

This blog is another one of my assignments while studying law; this one is about the Law of Evidence.


  • The law of evidence concerns those rules and principles which affect the investigation into questions of fact.
  • The Court may be concerned with mental conditions and physical sensations as well as with acts or objects perceived by sight, hearing, taste or touch
  • Facts which are put to the court by parties to an action as being the basis of the disputes are referred to as facts in issue.
  • What are the facts in question will be determined by reference to the law governing the particular circumstances involved and by the reaction of parties to the various allegations.
  • The law of evidence is, therefore, concerned both with the kind of facts which may be proved and the manner of their proof.

There are four main areas of law of evidence is concerned they are:

  1. The Kind Of evidence which will be accepted by the court
  2. The amount of evidence which will be required by the court
  3. The manner in which evidence will be presented to the court
  4. The persons who may or must give evidence.



Case Scenario:

Mr Stephenson who was The Truck was apparently swerving from one side of the road to other before the fatal accident killing four people in which neither of the deceased had current valid licenses.  But Mrs Dani has observed the Kenworth truck 30 minutes before the fatal truck driving erratically. Will the Evidence of Mr Stephens earlier being convicted four years earlier of dangerous driving causing death will this be enough evidence in this case?

One of the deceased had also been convicted of dangerous driving four weeks earlier in the car, Will this also be Evidence or would it come under the rule Double Jeopardy. Also, Evidence has come in effect of Mr Danni who had been convicted ten years early of perjury in a trial that involved a fraud charge against her friend would the court take this into account for this recent case.



  1. 30 minutes before the crash, Mrs Danni had observed the driver of the Kenworth truck driving erratically by swerving on either side of the road and overtaking on a blind bend on a hill.

The evidence required by the prosecution has mentioned that in this case scenario is more likely to be relevant, due to the fact in the event of R v Buchanan: The accused was charged with manslaughter arising out of a collision in which a car driven by the accused was involved. The accused had admitted that he had consumed a large quantity of liquor during the day before the collision. The prosecution had tendered evidence from Mr and Mrs Lewis about 35-40 minutes before the fatal accident. The court held that the evidence given by Mr and Mrs Lewis was properly admitted as relevant to the fact in issue.


  1. Mr Stephenson had been convicted four years earlier of dangerous driving causing death.


The evidence is this case would be relevant and would be admissible in fact, even though it happened four years ago. This evidence would, in fact, be relevant to this new case due to the fact four years early which also resulted in death so overall it would be in fact be relevant and would not course a double jeopardy rule.




1: The blood alcohol reading and TCH of the two deceased after the accident.


This evidence would be admissible, because of the alcohol reading and the use of the cannabis is relevant to this issue in hand, because of in the case of R v Stephenson, that the evidence did not establish who was the driver of the Fiat at the time of the collision, at the initial trial, the counsel for the accused sought to cross-examine a medical witness as to whether Miss Broberg’s body contained any drugs or alcohol and also to adduce evidence of the results of the blood alcohol tests conducted on the three male deceased persons. The counsel for the accused argued that the condition of all occupants should be revealed to the court because of the sobriety of the driver of the Fiat was relevant, and anyone of the four occupants may have been the driver, The trial judge disallowed this evidence and directed that the movements of the Fiat on the roadway were relevant, but unless connected in some way with those movements, the condition of the occupants was not relevant, also on appeal the court agreed with the trial judge’s refusal to allow defense counsel to lead evidence of the occupants.


1: Neither of the deceased occupants had a current driver’s licence.

The probability of who was driving the vehicle could have been incapable of controlling the said vehicle this evidence would be admissible. To the current case.


2: One of the deceased had been convicted of reckless driving four weeks earlier.


(Road Traffic Act 1974 -Sec 61. Sub (4) a person is convicted of an offence against this section any offence previously committed by him/her against section 59,59A, or 60 shall be taken into account and deemed to have been offence against this section (but not to the exclusion of any other previous offence against this section) in determining whether that first-mentioned offence is at first or subsequent offence).

In the Case of   R V Buchanan {1966VR.9} the accused had been charged with manslaughter arising out of a Motor accident. He was interviewed by police officers in hospital five days after the accident and admitted he had drunk a large amount of alcohol before the accident. It was held that the statement was admissible, Shall pointed out that in this case of presenting there are no suggestions in the evidence that there was a suspension of the faculty of judgement, and the mere reduction of that faculty by head injury or drink could not be held to be sufficient to render a confession or admission involuntary in the legal sense.

Yes, this Evidence of Earlier conviction would be relevant to this case, due it had happened four weeks earlier before the fatal accident, it would not be admissible but be very relevant evidence.

  1. Mr Danni had been convicted ten years earlier of Perjury in a trial that involved a Fraud charged against her friend.


This Evidence is irrelevant and therefore inadmissible, because it is not relevant to the current case of Motor Vehicle Accident.




In this finding, the Relevance only occurs when an item of evidence must be relevant to a fact in issue to be admissible in a case. Some of the evidence in this current case would be exempt from being use.


Due to the fact it has nothing to do with Truck and car Collision, only evidence that I feel would be allowed would be the fact Mr Stephens has already been convicted of dangerous driving causing death before this recent case and that the deceased occupants maybe indeed did not know how to drive a vehicle according to one of the other drivers was convicted early of reckless driving.

Overall the Truck driver would be sentenced by the Road Traffic Act Section 59. Dangerous driving causing death.

Notes to consider:

  • previous conviction will most likely go against the accused and plaintiff
  • But what had caused the truck driver to swerve erratically?

The above may or may  not be correct, this is from a previous assignment I had studied.

How sign a Document using PDF

Posted on Updated on

Well we learnt another thing about PDF by Acrobat, this happened yesterday, my fiance wanted to sign documents on the computer and I didn’t know how so I fiddled around on Acrobat and come across this:

Click on Sign and you should get something like this to add onto PDF form.

You have a few options how you would like to display a signature.

Screenshot 2014-09-07 10.05.15
On right side of PDF u will see Sign

You have a few options how you would like to display a signature.

Such as:

  • Draw My initials
  • Type my Initials

Then you will need to go 

and work out how you would like to add your signature as you can see above figure show a few ways to do so so I have made a fake signature to show how it works with using your webcam to capture your signature see below picture,


 As you can see now on below picture using the web cam has taken a shot of fake signature it will now be saved and I can now sign documents opened in PDF form and send by email from the same program. I think is a great ideas as we will also be saving on paper. Screenshot 2014-09-07 10.28.14

Please feel free to comment on my posts thank you for reading my blogs please enjoy.


Business Law Partnerships

Posted on

Well I must love going through my old assignments as I just found another one that looks good. This time is all about Partnerships in a Business Scenario.

This case involves the law of business in Particular whether a Partnership exists and whether a Salaried Partner is liable to the creditors for the debts of other partners.


 A Partnership is defined as individuals carrying on a business in common to a view to profit.

Salaried Partner:

  They are promised definite salary to a certain amount. But in regards to law they are just advances of salaries in expectation of profit.

Well here we go the Scenario Scene:

Peter Toohet and Glen Stabb are partners in an Accounting partnership. They trade under the business name of Toohey and Stabb. In December 1985 they employ an employee accountant, Sandy Edwards. Sandy was paid $30 000 per year together with 5% of the net profits of the firm.

In December 1989 both Peter and Glen agreed to make Sandy a Salaried partner. She was now to receive 10% of the gross profits of the firm. Her name was to appear on the firm’s letterheads and she had agreed to this, she was introduced to all of their clients for the firm as a Partner. However, she took no part in the management of the firm. It was agreed that she would not be liable for any of the trading losses of the firm.

In January 1992 the firm opened a trust account in which it invested clients’ money. In March 1995 both Peter and Glen absconded with the firms trust account and left debts totalling $100 000. The creditors for the firm commenced legal proceedings against Sandy, claiming that as a partner in the firm she is jointly liable with Peter and Glen. The Creditors seek to recover $100 000 from Sandy as both Peter and Glen are in Tel Aviv, Israel, a country which has no extradition treaty with Australia. Advise:

Whether Sandy is a Partner as between Peter and Glen?

Well the conclusion for the first part of this is that  she was portrayed at first as a Salaried Partner, so under section 9 of the act she is just a salaried partner and not liable for the firms expenses etc.

 Whether Sandy is a partner between herself and the creditors?
Unfortunately Yes Sandy is a Partner towards the creditors, because she portrayed herself to be one under section 18 of the act.

Whether Sandy is jointly liable, with Peter and Glen for the $100 000 owed by the firm to the firm’s clients?

Unfortunately for Sandy it be difficult for her to claim to be less than a full partner, due to the fact she was held out to the firm’s clients that she is a partner of firms and she also had agreed upon her name to be on the firms letterheads, where it had come to a cost to her of the liability for the partnerships of Glen and Peter’s debts for her to be liable for the debts they have left her.

This has been supported by the case of Lynch v Stiff and Nationwide Building Society v Lewis.

So is Sandy liable in the conclusion unfortunately for Sandy she is liable for $100 000 owed by the firm to the firms Creditors.

Australia is a Lack Country NOT! Barnett Government your WRONG!

Posted on Updated on

Many people have asked “how do I make money online without spending a dime?”, Well I would not classify myself as an expert in this line, but many that I have come across are asking for money, which are generally are scammers and to our extent we lose a lot of money that we cannot afford too.

I find that many other sites like People Per hour, Guru, Elance, O’desk, Vworker and freelancer, many of these that I have tried out, I have gotten nowhere in as my bidding always seem to high, and when I check to see who has won the project your tasks they seem to been given to Overseas people who are bidding from 050-1.00 for the project, but within Australia we would not be able to live on that due we are pretty expensive place to live. My background shows I have a lot of experience and Have studied heaps I also feel that studying is a waste of time, due to I have not landed that dream job, so you are studying (Please get Part-time or temp work). I think many companies should give us Australians ago. I come across an Article “The Barnett Government, want state jobs to go to India”. Well Guess what they are wrong about this as there are many Local WA personals who love to work in the Local Government section, but they have been getting knocked done for the work, Plus GUESS what I am one of those workers who have been knocked down for work for the Local Government. We have applied for way too many jobs, such as Administration roles to which may dismay, I got knocked down even though having the experience to be able to do such roles, But my question is if the job is getting send overseas isn’t that like working from home like running a small business from home, as if it is there is plenty of Parents would take this job on and would love  the opportunity to work from home, who would be qualified to take on these types of work for Example : Virtual Assistants there are heaps in Australia, also maybe the government should start reassessing their values and think about Families who would love to work school hours and not the normal office hours  9 am- 5 pm.

So my overall opinion it is hard both ways no matter what, all we can do is try and keep positive attitude to whatever way we decide and we can only trust our own instincts and the best practice is make sure you do your research on both Local work and Virtual work. Good luck with your endeavour’s we wish you all SUCCESS!

The Australian Federal System of Government Precedent

Posted on

This  from another assignment that I had done whilst studying to become an Qualified Legal Secretary Course, I thought I might share with you all, this part of the assignment was about Public Mischief  and mistaken identity, my answers are based on Western Australian Law. Part 1 of the assignment started with an Actual case called R vs. Manly.


 The facts of the case a Lady told a police that a man ( whom she describe) had struck her with his fist and stolen money from her purse. The police investigated the matter but it turned out that nothing of the sort had happened. She was convicted on the offence of affecting a public mischief and appealed against her conviction. At the time there was no such crime on the statute books. There were a couple of old decisions that a conspiracy to effect a public mischief was an offence, but conspiracy is an agreement and the law often treats as unlawful combination of people who agree to do something even though the same act done by an individual would have been lawful. No lawyer could have advised Mrs Manly in advance that she was committing an offence.

The decision of the case that the indictment (Charge) aptly describes the two ingredients of public mischief or prejudice to the community, one of these being that the officers of the Police were led to devote their time and services to the investigation of an idle charge and the other being that of the public, or at any rate those of them who answered a certain description, were put in peril of suspicion and arrest.

The question asked us to what the ratio of R vManly was?

The ratio of this case was the Mrs Manly clearly set out to be a Public Mischief by deliberately accused an innocent person of a crime they did not commit.


The next part of this comes to fake case called R v May Jones

The facts of the case Mrs Jones is doing her shopping one day and she discovers her purse is missing from her bag. She remembers that a few minutes before she brushed against a man in the street, so she immediately reports that matter to the police describing the man and saying that she thinks he took her purse. The next day the store telephones her and tells her that she had left her purse on the counter. She tells the police who are very annoyed. She is subsequently charged and convicted of affecting a public mischief and fined one hundred dollars. She appeals and the case some before us.

The assignment questions ask one the basis of the Ration in R v Manly, should Mrs Jones be convicted or acquitted? Give reasons for your decisions?

 If I was a judge Mrs Jones should be acquitted of the charge because under section 24 of the Criminal Code of Western Australia has clearly stated that a Person who omits to do an act on honest and reasonable mistaken of the existence of any state of things is not criminally responsible for the acts or omission’s to any extent then is of the real state of things that he or she had believed existed. As Mrs Jones has thought that the man who brisked past her earlier she had reasonably had thought that the man had actually stolen it. So overall in my opinion Mrs Jones should not be convicted of the Offence of being a Public Mischief.


Well part 2 of this blogs is about another case about Balfour vs. Balfour

Facts of the case Mr Balfour was a civil servant who was stationed in Ceylon earlier this century. He and his wife returned to England when Mr Balfour went on leave. While in England, Mrs Balfour became so ill that she decided to stay in England rather than return to Ceylon with her husband. Mr Balfour told Mrs Balfour that he would pay her 30 pound each month during the time they were force to live a part, Mr Balfour then returned to Ceylon without Mrs Balfour.


Mr Balfour made a few payments and then wrote to his wife suggesting that they remain separated. At the same time he refused to continue with the payments which they had agreed upon. Mrs Balfour was upset by this news and decided to use Mr Balfour for Breach of the agreement which they had made.


Decisions the English court held that Mrs Balfour could not succeed in her actions against Mr Balfour because the arrangements was not contractual but merely a domestic arrangement between parties. The court said the husband and wife had not intended that their arrangement be bound by any legal consequences if there was a default.


What general rule can you sat that Balfour’s case stands for?

 The general rule the Balfour case stands for is the law of contract in particular intention to create a legal relations agreement between family and domestic arrangement not contractual and not enforceable which is not legally binding.


In another case of Merritt v. Merritt, the English court of Appeal, consisting of three judges, made a different decision. In this case the husband, Mr M, had left his wife for another woman. Mr and Mrs M reached an agreement under which Mr M was to pay Mrs M an amount of 40 pounds each month. Mrs M was to pay off the building society loan which had been take out by way of a mortgage over the matrimonial home which they owned. The house was actually in Mr M sole name and he agreed to transfer it to Mrs M name when the mortgage payments were completed. Mrs M paid of the balance of the mortgage, Mr M reduced his payments to her from 40 pounds per month to 25 pound month and then refused to transfer the house, so she took him too court and sued him for breach of the agreement which he had made with her.

The court decision decided in Mrs M favour and distinguished Belfour’s case by saying that the Merritt’s did intend to create enforceable legal relations because they were in an amicable relationship such as that which existed between the Belfour’s when the Belfour’s made their agreement in the earlier case.


 What general principal can you say that Merritt’s case stand for?

 The general principal in Merritt’s case, it involved the law of Contract, as it was to create a Legal Intention, family domestic had legally separated which had made the agreement more legally binding.


Fact Situation Mr R was a wealthy old man who lived in a very large house in Sydney. Mr R’s sister and her husband lived in England where the husband was a university lecturer.

Mr R, who probably missed his sister’s company, persuaded her to come to Australia with her husband. Mr R promised his sister that he would provide her and her husband with a home and that he would leave his property to them both in his will if they did come out.

The sister, Mrs W, and her husband sold their home in England and Mr W resigned from his lectureship. They did these things on the basis of Mr R’s promise and came to live with Mr R in Australia. Unfortunately the parties a quarrel arose between Mr and Mrs W and Mr R with the results that Mr R then sold the house and changed his will, leaving Mr and Mrs W out of it altogether. They were left out in the cold and they also were not pleased with the breach of the agreement.

 On the basis of the two cases of Balfour and Merritt, can you say whether Mrs W and her husband are likely to be able to enforce the agreement which they made with Mr R? Give reasons.

The fact scenario involved the law of contract and in particular the intention to create a legally binding.

The intention to create the legal relation is presumed not to exist if the agreement is of social and domestic nature, but this presumption can also be rebutted if one the parties had relied upon the agreement and suffered a significant loss.

We have to assume in this case above that Mr R’s sister and husband had relied upon the promise of a home and property if they moved over to Australia to look after Mr R, which they had sold their Estate and belongings and he husband gave up his job.

Within my View of this case is supported by Wakeling v Ripley (1951), where it has similar scenario to our current case in hand. But within this case the court had held that the strong evidence to rebut the presumptions regarding the domestic agreements that the parties intend to enter a contractual and enforceable contract, because of the Plaintiff’s consequences were so serious they  had loss and because of the seriousness of the events the Plaintiff’s Mr Wipley was entitled to damages.


So for the above reasons by conclusions to this case scenario in hand I would advise Mrs W and her husband they are likely to rebut the presumption and to be able to enforce the agreement made by her Brother Mr R, because of their significant loss of their belongings that they would be rewarded compensation of either the house and its contents or their brother to compensate their lost in a dollar value.

PART 3 of this blog is last part comment briefly on the following words spoken by Mr Justice Murphy of the High Court”

“Then there is the doctrine of precedent, one of my favourite doctrines. I have managed to apply it at least once a year since I’ve been on the bench. The doctrine is that whenever you are faced with decisions, you always follow what the last person who was faced with the same decision did. It is a doctrine eminently suitable for a nation overwhelmingly populated by sheep. As the distinguished chemist, Cornford, said” The doctrine is based on theory that nothing should ever be done for the first time”.


Within the above quotation the doctrine of precedent is where judges decide on cases coming before them, which is based upon past decisions. As Mr J. Murphy’s comment of the precedent, that he uses decisions of a past case to analyse a case that may come across in front of him, which the case may have similar facts and issues, where he can analyse a decisions to be submitted.