Two fresh public… | Year 11 Legal Studies · T1 W1–2 · Learner checks

These are public formative tasks, not secure exams, QCAA school assessments or legal advice. Both files, people, instruments and places are invented. A teacher may read the file aloud or transcribe a response and should record support. Learners may use any same-target route in daily choices. The teacher should capture the first response before feedback. No personal legal matter is needed.

Day 5 check A · Horizon skate hall (File J)

Read the new file. A fictional venue called Horizon Skate Hall publishes a membership rule: “Use the marked lane when carrying boards.” A staff member says the rule is a Queensland criminal law. A different document headed Night Open Public Rooms Bill was introduced into the fictional Queensland Assembly exercise yesterday. The exercise file says nothing about passage, assent, commencement, an offence or a penalty. A one-page closure notice is placed behind a high counter; some visitors say they cannot see or reach it. No real local by-law, enacted Act or criminal charge is supplied.

Classify the lane instruction and the proposed bill. What is not yet established as law or crime? Cite two file details.
Name a primary source and two legal-status details you would need before accepting the staff member's criminal-law claim. Why is a venue worker's statement insufficient?
Who would make an actual Queensland statute, who might administer it, and who would decide its meaning in a dispute? State one overlap or caveat.
Give the venue's and one visitor's viewpoints about the notice. Explain one plausible consequence of leaving the notice as it is, without assuming a breach of a particular real Act.
Recommend one fair, practical next step with a reason based on accessible notice or predictable enforcement. State what your recommendation does not prove.

Choose output: a five-box annotated file, five full-word sorting cards with a short explanation, or a five-part spoken/AAC/dictated response. Keep the same source and limits. Say “the file establishes”, “I infer”, and “I still need”.

Day 10 check B · South Quay (File K)

Read this separate new file. The invented South Quay Youth Studio has a club rule: “One visitor at a time near the sound desk.” In a classroom simulation, a Queensland model bill about public studio notices has passed the Legislative Assembly and received assent, but the supplied extract says its notice provision commences next month. Its only reproduced clause describes a notice duty; the extract provides no offence or penalty. A worker alleges that Ari deliberately damaged a cable today. An invoice shows replacement cost; a camera still shows Ari near the desk, but the cable is outside the image. No other witness or offence provision is supplied. A website also claims a 1986 Australian Law Reform Commission report states what every living First Nations community thinks about law today; no community is identified or quoted.

Separate the club rule, assented-but-not-yet-commenced provision and unsupported criminal claim. Which source/status fact matters for today?
Does the supplied evidence establish Ari's action or guilt? State the general criminal onus and standard, then give two limits of the invoice/camera still. Do not decide a real offence.
If a real Queensland criminal charge were identified, what court is the usual first level? What could a relevant higher-court precedent help with, and what could it not prove here?
Explain why the website's universal claim is not established by a dated institutional report. What kind of contemporary, community-approved source and legal source would be needed for a specific issue?
Write a short recommendation for the studio that distinguishes safety/notice from criminal accusation, cites at least two file details, considers two viewpoints and states a consequence or limitation. Keep it conditional.

Choose output: annotate the file and make a claim/evidence/limit grid; sort full-word status/evidence/source cards with a short synthesis; or give a recorded/transcribed spoken or AAC five-part response. The same legal reasoning is expected. Do not disclose a personal case or present a fictional First Nations voice.