代写论文：贿赂事件
根据所进行的案例研究，这些罪行被认定是在1967年《陪审员法》(Act)下提交的。这一罪行被认为违反了陪审团审议的机密性，以及陪审团成员的身份。在为这项研究进行的案例研究的两部分中已经确定了它。在案例研究的第一部分中，确认信息的机密性是由Sam通过在twitter上公开所有的法律信息披露的贿赂事件。这是山姆为了获得公众的关注，在他的职业生涯中获得的尊严(Maseres,2008)。然而，他并没有意识到他违反了陪审团在1967年法案(Act)下进行的陪审团审议的机密性。在本案的第二部分，萨丽参与鸟类试验的案例由山姆确定。然而，通过收集有关此案的信息，山姆给《堪培拉论坛报》写了一封电子邮件，要求出版这件事。由于这个原因，在法官发布了预防命令，以表扬骗子。这个陪审团被认定为无效审判，而且根据法院的命令，陪审团也被驳回。因此，根据1967年的陪审员(Act)的规定，山姆被认定对陪审员的行为负责。这些是在本例中所提供的两份申请书，表明这些答复是根据1967年的《条例》(Act)而提出的，并违反了该答案所提供的部分。这被认为是在显示出违反行为的行为，因为事实证明这是对本案的适当判决，必须对山姆进行调查，因为他的行为超出了他作为一名记者的职责(Bakshi,2012)。
代写论文：贿赂事件
According to the case study undertaken, the offenses were identified to be committed under the Jurors Act 1967 (ACT). The offense was identified to be breaching of the confidentiality of the jury deliberations and the identities with the Personation of the Jurors. It had been identified in the two part of the case study undertaken for the study. In the first part of the case study, the confidentiality of the information is identified to be made by Sam with disclosing all the legal disclosures publicly by tweeting the incident of the bribery. It has been made by Sam to gain publicity and get the dignity in the profession of his job (Maseres, 2008). However, he did not realize that he was breaching the confidentiality of the jury deliberations which come under the Juror Act 1967(ACT). In the second part of the case, the involvement of Sally in the case of Bird trial is identified by Sam. Nevertheless, by gathering the information about this case, Sam wrote an email to The Canberra Tribune for the publishing of this matter. Due to this reason, the suppression is seen in the judge who issued the prevention order to upraising the crook. This jury was identified as a mistrial, and also the jury was dismissed as per the court orders were carried out. Thus, Sam is identified to be responsible for committing an offence by considering the Personation of the Jurors which come under the Juror Act 1967 (ACT). These are the two applications which are provided in this case with showing that the responses are identified to be against the Juror Act 1967 (ACT) with breaching the sections provided in the justification of this answer. This is identified to be showing the breaching of the Act as it had been proved to be showing the appropriate judgment to this case and the investigation must be made against Sam for the conduct undertaken with going beyond his duties of being a journalist (Bakshi, 2012).
