Print or project. Cards A–F and H contain invented teaching situations, not local policy, enacted law or a real case. Cards G and cited institutional links identify authentic external sources; their summaries are original paraphrases. Do not ask learners to disclose real contact with police, courts or migration systems.
Card A · One space, three kinds of rule
At Banyan Learning Hub (invented), the study-room sign says “one group per table”; a club asks members to leave phones in bags; a security volunteer claims “breaking either is a criminal offence”. No statute, regulation or valid by-law is supplied. A rule may be a school or club rule without being a crime. To establish legal force, identify the relevant jurisdiction, actual enacted instrument, conduct and authority. Ask: who made each rule, who enforces it and what evidence is missing before calling a breach a crime? Q1
Card B · An invented bill, not a law
In the fictional Harbourlight State, a member proposes the Public Study Spaces Bill. One model clause says “At public study sites, operators must give visitors a readable notice before closing a room.” A poster already claims “the Bill now makes an unannounced closure a crime”. Nothing says the bill passed, received assent, commenced, or created an offence. Put proposal → scrutiny/debate → passage → assent → commencement in order; mark every step that would need verification. Real Queensland has a single Legislative Assembly, not the federal two-house sequence. QP1
Card C · Three accounts of a mark on a wall
At fictional Northbank Arts Hall, a panel is marked after a festival. A caretaker saw a learner nearby; a time-stamped photograph shows an earlier mark but no person; a repair invoice shows a cost, not who caused it. The venue seeks a fair response while the learner denies making the mark. Neither account establishes an offence or guilt. List what each item can and cannot establish. In a criminal prosecution, the prosecution generally carries the burden and must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. A school conduct decision has a different procedure; do not transplant criminal proof rules automatically. P1 Q1
Card D · Which power are we sorting?
Arm of Commonwealth government: Parliament legislates, the executive administers, courts interpret/apply law and decide cases. Australian ministers sit in Parliament, so this is not a perfect personnel split. Division between Commonwealth and states: the Constitution allocates exclusive, concurrent and residual law-making powers; inconsistent Commonwealth law prevails to the extent stated by s 109. Those are two different comparisons. The fictional proposal in Card B is not automatically within any actual Australian parliament's jurisdiction. P2 P3
Card E · Courts are not interchangeable
For a simplified Queensland criminal path, the Magistrates Court is the first level; serious matters may be referred to the District Court or Supreme Court; the Supreme Court includes a Court of Appeal. Actual jurisdiction depends on legislation and the matter. A lower court should consider a binding decision from a higher court in its hierarchy on the same legal point; this is precedent, not a promise that every fact pattern has only one answer. Broad procedure contrast: in an adversarial model opposing parties lead presentation of their cases to a deciding judge; in an inquisitorial model the judicial officer takes a more active inquiry role. Real systems are not pure boxes. State what additional information would be needed before choosing a court for Card C. QC1 A2
Card F · A source ladder for a claim
Claim: “The Northbank mark is definitely a Queensland criminal offence.” Proposed sources: (1) a social post repeating a rumour; (2) a current, authorised Queensland statute with relevant provisions; (3) a judgment interpreting those provisions; (4) an invented classroom card. Only 2 and potentially 3 can establish/interpret the actual legal rule; none by itself proves the unknown facts or guilt in Card C. A statute is enacted law; common law arises through court decisions. The authorised Queensland Criminal Code Act 1899 is an authentic example of a code, not evidence that this fictional scenario meets an offence. L1
Card G · Customary law source limits
The Australian Law Reform Commission's 1986 report summary describes Aboriginal customary laws as diverse and changing across peoples; its account says recognition within general Australian law was limited and uneven and that Aboriginal peoples must have authority in consultation. It is a historic government report, not a present-day First Nations person's voice or a rule from any named community. Compare two questions: “What legal recognition did the report discuss?” and “Who can speak for a particular living law today?” We cannot answer the second for a community using this card. A1
Card H · Interpret a fictional clause carefully
The fictional Public Notice Act says, “An operator must give visible notice before closing a public study room.” It has no offence clause or penalty in the supplied extract. In the teaching scenario a screen reader user asks for an audio notice. A purpose-based interpretation question asks what “visible notice” achieves and whether the supplied words address equal access; students should identify uncertainty and alternative readings, not declare a binding judgment. The authentic Queensland Acts Interpretation Act 1954, s 14A prefers the interpretation best achieving an Act's purpose and expressly does not create or extend criminal liability. We have not supplied a real purpose section, so the model's purpose cannot be proven. L2
Original synthetic cards and source summaries © NeuroForgeIO Pty Ltd 2026, CC BY 4.0.