Topic: Crime (Core, 30%) — Chapter 3
Duration: ~4–5 lessons (≈ 4–5 × 50 min)
Class: Year 11/12 Legal Studies
Mode: Explicit teaching (deck) + activities + mock trial + discussion
▸ 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)
Students learn about:
court jurisdictionthe adversary systemlegal personnelpleas & charge negotiationlegal representation incl. legal aidburden & standard of proofuse of evidence incl. witnessesdefences to criminal chargesthe role of juries incl. verdicts| Time | Phase | Teacher does / says | Slides |
|---|---|---|---|
| L1: 0–10' | Starter / hook | Bell-work: "You've been charged with a serious offence — list everyone who will be in the courtroom and what they do." Surface prior knowledge; preview the chapter map. | 1–2 |
| L1: 10–35' | Court jurisdiction | Teach 3.1 — original vs appellate; build the hierarchy bottom-up (Children's, Local/Coroner's, District, Supreme, CCA, High Court). Stress murder = Supreme, not District. | 3–7 |
| L1: 35–50' | Activity 1 | Court jurisdiction sorting task (below). Circulate; debrief the borderline cards (murder, manslaughter, appeals). | — |
| L2: 0–20' | Adversary system & personnel | Teach 3.2–3.3 — adversary vs inquisitorial; solicitor/barrister; magistrate, judge, police prosecutor, DPP, Public Defenders. Add the Drug Court as a specialist court. | 8–13 |
| L2: 20–35' | Activity 3 | Legal personnel "who does what" matching (below). Quick self-mark against the key. | — |
| L2: 35–50' | Pleas, negotiation, representation | Teach 3.4–3.5 — pleas & the 25% discount; charge negotiation pros/cons; legal aid (means & merit) and Dietrich. Discuss the "missing middle". | 14–16 |
| L3: 0–20' | Proof & evidence | Teach 3.6–3.7 — burden (prosecution) vs standard (beyond reasonable doubt); admissibility & types of evidence; expert evidence & the "CSI effect" (Wood, Folbigg, Jama). | 17–19 |
| L3: 20–50' | Defences | Teach 3.8 — complete defences vs partial defences to murder. Explicitly correct the OCR errors (duress not for murder; provocation reform 2014). Run Activity 2 (defences matching). | 20–22 |
| L4: 0–25' | Juries & verdicts | Teach 3.9 — selection, challenges, eligibility, verdicts (unanimous/majority/hung). Cases: Gittany (judge-alone), Xie (hung juries). Advantages/disadvantages; effectiveness. | 23–26 |
| L4: 25–50' | Activity 4 — mock trial (setup) | Allocate mock-trial roles (below) and brief the scenario; groups prepare their role. | — |
| L5 (opt.): 0–35' | Mock trial + consolidate | Run the mock trial; debrief against the adversary system, personnel and jury verdict. Recap slide + Self-Test. | 27 |
| L5: 35–50' | Check | Exit ticket + set the extended-response homework. | — |
If squeezed to 4 lessons, fold the mock trial into L4 as a shortened role-read, or set it as the consolidation task for the following unit.
Students place ~10 matters into the correct court, and state whether that court is exercising original or appellate jurisdiction. Matters: a parking fine; a common assault; a committal hearing; an armed robbery trial; a manslaughter trial; a murder trial; a 15-year-old charged with break & enter; an appeal against a Local Court sentence; an appeal against a Supreme Court conviction; a bid to appeal to the nation's final court.
Students match each fact pattern to the correct defence and say whether it is a complete defence or a partial defence to murder.
Students match role to description: magistrate, judge, police prosecutor, DPP, Public Defender, solicitor, barrister, jury.
Allocate roles for a short mock trial on a supplied stimulus (e.g. an assault or manslaughter fact scenario): judge, 12 jurors + foreperson, Crown prosecutor (DPP), defence barrister, accused, 2–3 witnesses (incl. one expert), court officer/associate. Groups prepare examination-in-chief and cross-examination questions; the jury deliberates and returns a verdict (aim for unanimity, then discuss what a hung jury would mean).
For teacher background, class discussion, and to keep examples current:
Tip: before each run of the unit, swap in one recent NSW case (a judge-alone trial, a hung jury, or a legal-aid story) so students see the trial process as live, not historical.