HSC Legal Studies · Crime · Teacher Resource

Chapter 2 — The Criminal Investigation Process

Lesson plan & teaching sequence · NESA Legal Studies Stage 6 (2009)
Teacher copy — includes answers

At a glance

Topic: Crime (Core, 30%) — Chapter 2
Duration: ~3–4 lessons (≈ 3–4 × 50 min)
Class: Year 11/12 Legal Studies
Mode: Explicit teaching (deck) + activities + discussion

Companion resources

▸ Teaching slide deck (project this)
▸ Student study/review page
▸ Activity materials handout (print for students)
▸ Crime Study Guide (cases, essays, self-test)
▸ Crime resource index (teacher)

Syllabus mapping — "The criminal investigation process"

Students learn about:

police powersreporting crimeinvestigating crime: gathering evidenceuse of technologysearch & seizureuse of warrantsarrest & chargesummonswarrantsbail or remanddetention & interrogationrights of suspects

Students learn to

Relevant themes & challenges

Lesson sequence & timings

TimePhaseTeacher does / saysSlides
0–10'Starter / hookBell-work: "You're stopped and searched walking home. What can police do — and what are your rights?" Collect responses; surface the tension between police powers and individual liberty that frames the whole chapter.1–2
10–30'Explicit teach: police powers (2.1)Teach 2.1 — LEPRA as the core statute, "reasonable suspicion", discretion, and oversight (LECC from 2017, replacing PIC/Ombudsman). Cover 2.1.1 move-on law reform as a worked example.3–6
30–40'Guided practiceActivity 1 (police-powers scenario cards) — see below. Students decide if each action is lawful and why; circulate and check for the "reasonable suspicion" reasoning.—
40–50'Reporting crime (2.2)Teach 2.2 — Crime Stoppers, why crime goes unreported, DV under-reporting. Pull a live BOCSAR statistic. Short think-pair-share.7–8
L2: 0–30'Investigating crime (2.3)Teach 2.3 — gathering evidence + Evidence Act 1995; use of technology & DNA; unpack Farah Jama; search & seizure; warrants as judicial oversight; body-worn cameras.9–12
L2: 30–50'Arrest, charge, CAN, warrants (2.4)Teach 2.4 — grounds for lawful arrest, "arrest as a last resort", charge/release, CAN vs subpoena vs warrant. Model the arrest sequence aloud.13–15
L3: 0–25'Bail or remand (2.5)Teach 2.5 — Bail Act 2013, unacceptable-risk & show-cause tests, conditions, remand. Use Monis/Lindt Café as the reform case study. Run Activity 2 (bail-or-remand decisions).16–18
L3: 25–50'Detention & rights (2.6) + consolidateTeach 2.6 — 6-hour period, time-outs, rights of suspects. Run Activity 3 (rights gap-fill) + exit ticket / Self-Test from the Study Guide.19–22

Activities & model answers

Activity 1 — Police-powers scenario cards (guided)

Students receive five short scenarios (in the activity handout). For each, decide: Is the police action lawful? Identify the power/right and the source (aim for LEPRA).

Model answers
(A) Stop & search on "reasonable suspicion". Lawful if the officer suspects on reasonable grounds (a fact-based suspicion, not a hunch) the person carries drugs/a weapon/stolen goods — LEPRA. A search on appearance alone is not lawful.
(B) Arrest for a minor matter when a CAN would do. Questionable — arrest should be a last resort; if the purpose (securing attendance, preserving evidence, safety) can be met by a Court Attendance Notice, arrest may be an improper use of the power.
(C) Search of a home without a warrant/consent/urgency. Generally unlawful — entry and search of premises normally needs a search warrant (judicial authorisation), consent, or a specific emergency power.
(D) Holding a suspect 9 hours straight, no breaks, no charge. Unlawful on these facts — the investigation period is 6 hours (extendable only by a detention warrant up to +8). "Time-outs" pause the clock, but continuous investigative questioning beyond 6 hours without a warrant is not lawful; suspect must be charged or released.
(E) Refusing a suspect contact with a lawyer before questioning. Unlawful — a suspect has the right to communicate with a legal practitioner and be cautioned; breach can render admissions inadmissible under the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).

Activity 2 — "Bail or remand?" decision task

Students apply the Bail Act 2013 framework — show cause (serious offences) then unacceptable risk — to four accused persons, deciding bail (with conditions) or remand, and why.

Model answers
(1) First-time shoplifter, fixed address, minor charge. Not a show-cause offence. Low unacceptable risk → bail, likely with light conditions (e.g. report weekly). Refusing bail would be disproportionate.
(2) Charged with a serious personal-violence offence against a partner, prior breaches of an ADVO. A show-cause offence → accused must show why detention isn't justified. High unacceptable risk to victim safety and of reoffending; conditions may not manage it → likely remand, or bail only with strict protective conditions (non-contact, exclusion, monitoring).
(3) Alleged serious offence committed while already on bail. Show cause is engaged (offence on bail). Risk of reoffending is elevated → strong case for remand unless cause is shown and risk managed.
(4) Homeless accused, moderate charge, no fixed address, weak community ties. Teaching point on equity: no fixed address raises flight-risk concerns, but bail must not be refused merely because someone is homeless — bail support/accommodation conditions should be considered. Ideal answer flags the over-representation of disadvantaged and First Nations people on remand (cite BOCSAR).
Discuss: tie back to Monis — reforms improved protection but pushed up the remand population; weigh safety against the presumption of innocence.

Activity 3 — Rights of suspects: gap-fill & matching

Students complete a gap-fill on the detention period and match each suspect right to its purpose (handout).

Answer key
Gap-fill: initial investigation period = 6 hours; extendable by a detention warrant for up to a further 8 hours; then the suspect must be charged or released; the rules are in Part 9 of LEPRA; breaches can make evidence inadmissible under the Evidence Act 1995 (NSW).
Matching (right → purpose): Right to silence → can't be compelled to self-incriminate; silence ≠ guilt. Caution → suspect knows anything said may be used in evidence. Right to a lawyer/contact → access to advice; guards against oppressive questioning. Support person (children/vulnerable) → protects those who may not understand or may be pressured. Interpreter → ensures understanding where English is limited. Electronic recording → prevents fabricated confessions ("verballing") and disputes about what was said.
Time-outs that pause the clock: waiting for a lawyer/interpreter/support person; meals, rest, toilet, medical treatment; sobering up; transport from arrest point to station.

Key questioning (with answers)

Differentiation

  • Support: provide a LEPRA "powers & rights" cheat-sheet; sentence starters and a partly-completed bail decision for Activity 2.
  • Extension: research the NSW strip-search reform debate (LECC reports) or the rising remand population (BOCSAR) and write a short evaluation of whether police powers/bail are balanced.
  • EAL/D: pre-teach key terms (warrant, seizure, remand, caution, admissible); bilingual glossary; pair for the scenario cards.

Assessment & homework

  • Exit ticket: list the grounds for lawful arrest + one right of a detained suspect.
  • Homework: read the study/review page 2.3–2.6; complete the Self-Test in the Study Guide; find one recent NSW article on police powers or bail and note the balance issue.
  • Check for understanding: the 6+8 hour rule; the two Bail Act tests; why Jama matters.

Useful resources & recent articles

For teacher background, class discussion, and to keep examples current:

Tip: before each run of the unit, swap in one recent police-powers or bail story so students see the law as live. The Monis/Lindt Café inquest (findings May 2017) remains the anchor bail-reform case study.

Teacher note — source accuracy: the original student notes for this chapter were badly garbled by OCR (especially the bail/detention and DNA/evidence passages, and they still named the Police Integrity Commission/Ombudsman for oversight). This resource has rewritten those to the current law — LEPRA, the Evidence Act 1995, the Bail Act 2013 (unacceptable-risk + show-cause), the LECC (2017), and the correct Jama and Monis facts. If you refine anything for your cohort, edit the study/review page (the content source) and re-derive the deck.
Rose Bay Secondary College · HSC Legal Studies · Crime — Chapter 2 teacher lesson plan · NESA Stage 6 (2009) · HSC 2026