Victorian Commercial Teachers Association Conference

Our new resources include:

1. Powerpoint Session Unpacking R v Lynn
2. Criminal Law Casenote on R v Lynn
3. Civil Law Casenote on Hooper v Citywide Services
4. Constitution Casenote on Electric Vehicles and the Vanderstock High Court Case

Each case note has been written by experienced educators who use these examples to create meaningful and relatable learning experiences for students, bringing key concepts of the justice system to life. To further support teachers, we have developed a one-page Case Brief—a concise summary designed to assist younger students in understanding the core issues of each case.

Session: Unpacking R v Lynn, Criminal Law Case led by Justine Hanks

Justine Hanks, Education Manager at Rule of Law Education will be unpacking R v Lynn in a session at the VCTA conference.  The case of R v Lynn concerns the highly publicised trial of Greg Lynn (“Lynn”), a Victorian man charged with the murders of fellow Victorians Russell Hill and Carol Clay, who disappeared while camping in the Victorian High Country in March 2020. After an extensive investigation, Lynn was arrested in November 2021 and charged with two counts of murder.

The case provides an interesting insight into the role of juries and jury decision-making, sentencing decisions and key rule of law principles, such as fair and prompt trials, independence of the judiciary and punishment in accordance with the law. It also highlights some of the difficulties in the simultaneous achievement of the principles of justice – fairness, equality and access – when considering the conflicting rights and interests of accused persons, convicted offenders, victims of crime and the community.

A copy of Justine’s slides can be found here:

Criminal Case Note: R v Greg Lynn

The case of R v Lynn demonstrates the rule of law in practice: that justice can be achieved by applying clear and consistent legal principles. It shows how the presumption of innocence, proof beyond reasonable doubt, judicial discretion and fairness of process serve as essential checks on power and public pressure.

In this way, the case of Lynn reminds us of that adherence to the rule of law, even when outcomes are difficult, is what preserves the integrity of the justice system in Australia and enables the achievement of the principles of justice.

Civil Case Note: Hooper v Citywide Service Solutions

Julie Hooper (‘the plaintiff’) worked for Citywide Service Solutions. Hooper was a former professional athlete and ultra marathon runner and joined a labour hire company while seeking employment in occupational health and safety.

Hooper drove a street sweeper and on May 2017, parked the vehicle at a 7-Eleven store, leaving the vehicle running. She believed that she had engaged the handbrake and exited the vehicle. While inside the store, she noticed the sweeper slowly rolling towards the shop. Hooper ran out of the store to stop the sweeper and attempted to open the door to enter the sweeper to turn it off, however become crushed between the sweeper and the building.

As a result, she suffered severe injuries resulting in multiple surgeries and was significantly disabled following the incident. She commenced suing both Citywide Service Solutions and the labour hire company for negligence. The matter against the first Defendant was settled with the plaintiff prior to the court proceedings.

Her case against the second Defendant was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. In the case, the plaintiff had to prove the three elements described above to be successful in her claim against Citywide Service Solutions: duty of care, breach of duty and causation (including damage and remoteness).

The court had to assess if the lack of training and safety equipment directly caused Hooper’s injuries or, given she was injured in her attempt to stop the vehicle from rolling, whether her own independent actions had contributed to her injuries.

Constitution Case Note: Vanderstock and Electric Vehicles

As EV’s do not use petrol, they do not pay fuel excise, creating a shortfall in road-use revenue and sparking debates about fairness and sustainability. To address this gap in the state of Victoria, the Victorian Parliament introduced the Zero and Low Emission Vehicle Distance-based Charge Act 2021 (Vic), which required electric and Hybrid vehicle owners pay a charge for every kilometre driven (“the ZLEV charge”). The intention was to replace lost revenue from the fuel excise.

Two Victorian EV users challenged the ZLEV charge based on the division of powers as set out in the Constitution. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia, with the decision referred to as Vanderstock v Victoria.

The case considered whether Victoria’s law was valid under the Constitution, or whether it intruded into an area, the taxation of excise, reserved exclusively for the Commonwealth under section 90.

It explored key legal concepts including the division of law-making powers between the Commonwealth and the states, the exclusive powers of the Commonwealth under the Australian Constitution, and what happens when a state government makes a law that is within the Commonwealth powers.

In addition, the case also underscored the High Court’s role in defining the limits of state and federal power, applying precedent, and shaping Australian law through judicial interpretation.

Love our resources and want to receive updates?

For those who sign up as members, we will be giving a surprise Poster Pack which could includes the Australian Court Hierachy, Criminal or Civil Law posters, The Rule of Law and Human Rights, Rule of Law and Economic Growth and the Rule of Law Wheel?  A copy of of all these posters can be found on our website.

This poster looks at the multi-dimensional protections we have in Australia.