You can download the solution to the following question for free. For further assistance in Law assignments please check our offerings in Law assignment solutions. Our subject-matter-experts provide online assignment help to Law students from across the world and deliver plagiarism free solution with free Turnitin report with every solution.
(ExpertAssignmentHelp do not recommend anyone to use this sample as their own work.)
You are to read the case Bugmy v The Queen  HCA 37 and write a critical case note as set out below.
The task is divided into two parts (Part A and Part B).
You must complete both parts.
Both parts are of equal weight (15 marks each). They do not necessarily need to be of the exact same length; however, you do need to consider that the allocated mark is the same when deciding how much space you dedicate to each part.
PART A (worth 15 marks)
You need to locate and read the most authoritative version of the case cited above.
You need to write a case note in response to the following headings:
- Introduction: This should include identification of the case name and citation, court and judge/s.
- Material Facts: What are the circumstances that gave rise to the dispute? Think about the facts that are relevant to the legal reasoning. You only need to provide enough factual information to explain how the legal issues arose; you do not need to present facts of no relevance to the legal issues. Identify the parties clearly and be consistent with how you refer to them throughout the assignment.
- Procedural history: Provide an overview of the procedural history of the matter (if any).
- Legal issues: What is the legal issue(s) (or legal questions) that the court has to answer?
- Legal Reasoning: What did the judge/s decide and what were their reasons for that decision?
- Orders: What is the outcome of the case? What orders were made?
PART B (worth 15 marks)
Critically evaluate the case using legal theories of race including Critical Race Theory and Postcolonialism. This can be given the sub-heading 'Critical Analysis.'
The present report analyse Bugmy v The Queen  HCA. The case was tried at the high court, where the case number: S99/2013 was allowed a re-appeal against the decision of the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal. The lower court judgement was passed by the 'Supreme Court of New South Wales under honourable Hoeben JA, Johnson and Schmidt JJ. Meanwhile, the high court precedence was by the judges French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel, Bell, and Keane JJ, and the concluding judgment was written by Gageler J.
In Bugmy v R ('Bugmy'), the High Court was presented with a special leave as they assessed the sentencing principles for the indigenous offenders. Mr Bugmy was an aboriginal man from the New South Wales town of Wilcannia. He has witnessed violence and alcohol abuse for most of his life and was an alcohol addict since the age of 13 years. Following the witnessing of the brutal death of his mother, Mr Bugmy frequently mixed with the law and was detained at the juvenile detention. He moved to an adult prison at the age of 18 years. Mr. Bugmy showed ‘Fernando type issues through a history of abuse and alcoholic growing up period. He also had a medical background of head and auditory injury and suicide attempts in the past.
Mr Bugmy had priors with officer violence and use of force as well as arsenal. In this particular event, Mr Bugmy became upset when his visitors did not arrive at the Centre where he was for remand at the visiting hours. At that time, the Senior Correctional Officer Gould extended the visiting hours; however, when Mr Bugmy failed to get the desired result, he threatened Gould, and called his partner, repeating the same threat. When Assistant Superintendent Pitt and officer, Mr Donnelly, arrived at the scene, they were threatened as well and were attacked by the pool balls from a nearby table. Mr Bugmy pleaded guilty to two counts of assault with an intent to cause harm to the correctional officer in May 2011.