How did everyone go on the exam?

[xtremeownage]

Share your thoughts..

[Abdi]

It was awesome and easy!

[timmylewis6]

n2b. what did you write for the 1 mark questions? my class have all said it could really be supreme, county or even magistrates. not a great question imo

[Abdi]

everyone in my school wrote Magistrates... culpable driving isn't that serious of an offence to go to county or supreme! lol

[oscar]

Wasn't as hard as previous years. I thought I did alright, can't wait to get results.

[mattwedge]

culpable driving usually results in death from reckless driving, so it can be county court. however the question was worded badly and teachers will probably appeal to vcaa

[timmylewis6]

do you think if appealed that they will accept all answers? and will they give consequential for the next question aswell?

[Hellhole]

Midyear accounting exam had a very poorly worded question and everyone got 2 out of 2 marks for it.

Perhaps, the one mark questions will be the same.

I answered 'Magistrate's Court' for two reasons:

150 hours community service order? For killing someone? Not exactly justified.
In one of the previous exams, a question similar came up that said something along the lines of: [Name] was convicted of Culpable Driving CAUSING SERIOUS INJURY. What court would he appear in? I figured that, since the word culpable directly defines as: blameworthy, then perhaps he was just driving recklessly and was found guilty.

The combination of these two lead me to believe that culpable driving, whilst an indictable offence, was heard summarily in the Magistrate's Court and that's how his penalty was not that high.

That question, the question about the person giving the sanction and the other forms of sanctions and their purpose all relating to Carl should be given 100% - perhaps not the sanctions and purpose one; because it was kind of not related - but I did mention the fact that Carl's sentence would not be more than two years as it was heard in the Magistrate's court so, if those two one-markers were given full marks, then I should not be blamed for that slight mishap.

Otherwise, alright. I suck at doing the 8 and 10 markers - probably got 6 and 8 respectively.
Heard mixed reviews from my class - most said they didn't finish, which is disappointing for them, but good for those that want higher marks?

[xtremeownage]

Also how did everyone go on that question about tribunals and effective mechanism for the resolution of disputes = 5marks? that's the only thing i think i lost 3 or 2 marks in? Also what 10 marker did u guys choose? i chose 10 b, explained jury, role of judge, parties, rules of evidence and procedure, standard and burden of proof in the adversary , then said i partially agree to the statement = then i gave one strength + one weakness on ea of the different functions in adversary + the suggested change = relation of rules of evidence and procedure.

[xtremeownage]

Also, what do u guys think will be a low A or low A+ on the exam for this year? i believe i got above 50/60.

[Hellhole]

For the tribunals and effective access to the mechanism of dispute resolution, I just discussed 5 strengths of tribunals that relate to the effective access. E.g. cost of legal representation for litigation, where tribunals may not require legal representation; cost of court and administration fees aren't as expensive in tribunals - i.e. approximately $35.00 for access to VCAT; less formalities (meaning more informal than litigation) of tribunals, showing people that caution and fear of taking civil action is not as extreme; less pressure on courts due to minor cases being taken to tribunals rather than litigation, allowing for more complex and major cases having the appropriate access to courts; and one other that alludes me. D:

I chose B for the 10-marker. You have to note that the jury is not an aspect of the adversarial system - though I'm pretty sure you could have talked about it, since the inquisatorial system doesn't use juries at all. Explained what the adversary system is, talked about role of the judge, parties, rules of evidence and procedure, standard and burden of proof, gave one strength to three out of the four I did, as well as two weaknesses over all, then gave my suggested change = judge being able to question witnesses during the trial to ask questions that might not be covered by either party and could show more information to make a decision. Gave my opinion at the start. Ended up writing 500-600 words in 20 minutes, suprisingly. Just blurted it all out on the page.

[chrisjb]

Heard mixed reviews from my class - most said they didn't finish, which is disappointing for them, but good for those that want higher marks?

I didn't quite finish! I was doing the whole 'add an extra paragraph to scrapy answers to ensure you get the mark' thing, and I had one word to go in a paragraph... The word was 'invalid' the sentence reads 'the high court can declare infringing legislation...' (the question about restrictions on the commonwealth- only like two marks if i remember correctly).

[Hellhole]

Heard mixed reviews from my class - most said they didn't finish, which is disappointing for them, but good for those that want higher marks?

I didn't quite finish! I was doing the whole 'add an extra paragraph to scrapy answers to ensure you get the mark' thing, and I had one word to go in a paragraph... The word was 'invalid' the sentence reads 'the high court can declare infringing legislation...' (the question about restrictions on the commonwealth- only like two marks if i remember correctly).

I'm sure the examiner will understand what you're trying to say, buddy. Don't stress too much. I finished but overall, with some really crappy answers. That question that you're talking about there I talked a whole lot of crap. It was along the lines of:

"One restriction on the law-making of the Commonwealth Parliament in the Commonwealth Constitution Act is the limits on jurisdiction the Commonwealth Parliament has, as set out by the division of powers. The Commonwealth Constitution states that the Commonwealth Parliament must not create laws in residual areas of power, which are left to the states' jurisdiction. For example: the power to create laws to do with primary and secondary schooling."

Along those lines, at least. Poor effort. I had no idea what to write.

[chrisjb]

Heard mixed reviews from my class - most said they didn't finish, which is disappointing for them, but good for those that want higher marks?

I didn't quite finish! I was doing the whole 'add an extra paragraph to scrapy answers to ensure you get the mark' thing, and I had one word to go in a paragraph... The word was 'invalid' the sentence reads 'the high court can declare infringing legislation...' (the question about restrictions on the commonwealth- only like two marks if i remember correctly).

I'm sure the examiner will understand what you're trying to say, buddy. Don't stress too much. I finished but overall, with some really crappy answers. That question that you're talking about there I talked a whole lot of crap. It was along the lines of:

"One restriction on the law-making of the Commonwealth Parliament in the Commonwealth Constitution Act is the limits on jurisdiction the Commonwealth Parliament has, as set out by the division of powers. The Commonwealth Constitution states that the Commonwealth Parliament must not create laws in residual areas of power, which are left to the states' jurisdiction. For example: the power to create laws to do with primary and secondary schooling."

Along those lines, at least. Poor effort. I had no idea what to write.

Yeah, they'll know what I was on about. Anyway, I was adding detail that the question didn't realy require, so it's no biggie.

[andy456]

Also how did everyone go on that question about tribunals and effective mechanism for the resolution of disputes = 5marks? that's the only thing i think i lost 3 or 2 marks in? Also what 10 marker did u guys choose? i chose 10 b, explained jury, role of judge, parties, rules of evidence and procedure, standard and burden of proof in the adversary , then said i partially agree to the statement = then i gave one strength + one weakness on ea of the different functions in adversary + the suggested change = relation of rules of evidence and procedure.

I dont remember this question entirely as I did not do it but i thought the question was all about the adversary system?? If it was I was taught not to talk about juries as they are not a part of the adversary system....