Year 11 Legal Studies.
The year you stop saying "the law says" and start citing the section.

Walkthrough

That earns roughly 1 of 6 marks — names a general offence, applies no elements, no statute, no statutory definition. Rebuilt: 'A is most likely to be charged under the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld). The most appropriate charge on these facts is assault occasioning bodily harm under s339, which requires (1) an assault (s245), and (2) bodily harm occasioned by that assault. Assault under s245 includes the application of force without consent; throwing a rock that strikes B constitutes the application of force. B did not consent. The intention to scare rather than to injure does not negate the offence because s339 is satisfied by the assault itself producing bodily harm — the intent required for the assault element is met by the deliberate throwing of the rock. The term "bodily harm" is defined in s1 of the Code as any bodily injury that interferes with health or comfort — a concussion clearly satisfies this. A would also have available the defence considerations under s23 (accident) but the facts indicate deliberate throwing, which excludes accident. On these facts the elements of s339 are made out and conviction is likely.' Six marks: identifies the jurisdiction and statute, identifies the specific section, states the elements, applies each element to the facts, considers and dismisses an applicable defence.

Walkthrough

Three problems. First, Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 was decided by the House of Lords, not the Australian High Court — it is a UK case that has been received into Australian common law. Second, the case did not establish that 'you can sue anyone who hurts you' — it established the neighbour principle, which requires that the defendant could reasonably foresee that their actions might injure the plaintiff. Third, no one has a duty of care to everyone at all times — duty of care is established by proximity, foreseeability, and policy considerations (refined in Australia through cases such as Sullivan v Moody [2001] HCA 59). Corrected paragraph: 'The neighbour principle articulated by Lord Atkin in Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562 was received into Australian common law and forms the foundation of the modern tort of negligence. The principle requires that the defendant owe a duty of care to those who are so closely and directly affected by their conduct that the defendant ought reasonably to have them in contemplation. Whether a duty of care exists in a novel situation is determined in Australia by the multi-factor approach in Sullivan v Moody [2001] HCA 59, which considers foreseeability, vulnerability, and policy. Breach is then assessed against the standard of the reasonable person in the defendant's position.' That version corrects the court, states the actual principle, identifies the controlling Australian authority, and frames the test correctly — which is what the marker is looking for.