VCE Legal Studies Question Thread

[shukrn]

no one cares

[tomatosauce]

Could someone please mark this response for me? Thanks!

Explain the purposes of pleadings and the discovery stage of the civil pre-trial procedure (5 marks)

One purpose of pleadings to share information regarding the case-specific with each of the parties. The plaintiff lodges a statement of claim, which outlines why they are suing, who they are suing and the remedy sought. The defence is then given this claim, and given an opportunity to respond with a statement of defence. In this statement, they will ‘admit’ to some claims and ‘contest’ others. The detailed sharing of the dispute between the parties and court allows a timeline to be set for the case, whilst keeping everyone informed.

Furthermore, pleadings serve to narrow the issues of dispute. This is because the defence has the opportunity to ‘admit’ or accept liability for part of the plaintiff's claims. The dispute which must be settled at a hearing or trial is then defined. This allows for a faster resolution.

The discovery stage of the pre-trial procedure serves the purpose of preparing parties for trial. During the exchange of evidence and documents, parties share the evidence they will use at a hearing/trial. Therefore, parties can prepare their arguments and assess the strength of the other side's case. Interrogatories also allow the parties to submit written questions which answers are admissible in court. Therefore, parties can add evidence required to allow them to prove their case or defend the claim.

Both pleadings and discovery can also serve a purpose to encourage an out-of-court resolution. Parties may be willing to negotiate a claim before the court, and potentially reach a settlement offer (at pleadings). During or after discovery, one party may seek to settle the case before a court hearing/trial as they can see the strength of the other side's case. This creates a faster resolution for everyone.

[Mackenzie Aps]

Hey Mackenzie,
I feel this question would be more suited to this thread.
It's a great step to get feedback from people other than your teacher but I would definitely feel you could still get a 40+ despite being dissapointed with this mark at the end of they day it is your ranking that matters most

Unfortunately didn't get anywhere near a 40, much disappointment. VCAA scored me as GA1 B, GA1 B+ and Exam B+ just missed out on a A:(  My raw SS was 33.  I noticed my SAC's went up slightly from B to B+ as well. No idea what my ranking was however, teacher never disclosed.  Other than through the teacher/school how would I find out from VCAA as there was nothing on the VCAA report?

[CorkedBoard]

My book says that if a a judge is not bound to follow a precedent, they may

adopt the precedent (follow or apply the precedent)
affirm the precedent (agree with the precedent)
avoid following the existing precedent

What is the difference between adopting and affirming?

[successismygoal]

Hey guys,

I really need help on how to write extended responses. We havent explicitly covered the structure for discuss questions. I am afraid discuss questions will make me lose marks. If the prompt is ''Discuss the ability of diversion programs to achieve fairness.'', how would I structure that? How do I argue against a principle of justice when arguing both sides?

 Also I somewhat have a structure for ''To what extent'' questions, could someone please let me know if I need any improvements?

1. Mention your stance, i.e. ''Imprisonment achieves the purpose of punishment to the highest extent''.
2. Paragraph supporting how imprisoning an offender punishes them
3. Another paragraph saying how imprisonment punishes them? Not too sure, because if I argue to the highest extent, then I have to include another paragraph right?
4. Concluding sentences summing up what has been said throughout the response.

Thank you!

[tomatosauce]

Hey guys,

I really need help on how to write extended responses. We havent explicitly covered the structure for discuss questions. I am afraid discuss questions will make me lose marks. If the prompt is ''Discuss the ability of diversion programs to achieve fairness.'', how would I structure that? How do I argue against a principle of justice when arguing both sides?

 Also I somewhat have a structure for ''To what extent'' questions, could someone please let me know if I need any improvements?

1. Mention your stance, i.e. ''Imprisonment achieves the purpose of punishment to the highest extent''.
2. Paragraph supporting how imprisoning an offender punishes them
3. Another paragraph saying how imprisonment punishes them? Not too sure, because if I argue to the highest extent, then I have to include another paragraph right?
4. Concluding sentences summing up what has been said throughout the response.

Thank you!

Hi!

For a discuss question, it is simply switching between strengths / weaknesses / opposing arguments of the same issue. For your particular question, 'Discuss the ability of diversion programs to achieve fairness' (and say it is 5 marks) I would do three paragraphs. First, how an aspect of diversion programs achieves fairness, and then shift to how diversion programs do not achieve fairness, and finally a third point how diversion programs do achieve fairness. For discuss questions, it is not necessary to provide an overall opinion, just try to flip your idea / point each side and stick to mark allocations (eg. 1+1 for 4 marks, 2+2 for 6/7 marks) .

For 'to what extent questions', generally I would not choose to argue fully one sided, as the markers still want to see the 'extent' to which your argument goes to. That is, to a moderate, fair extent etc. This way you are able to argue both sides of the issues, that is how imprisonment achieves just punishment and then how it does not. Overall, only one statement of opinion needed, either put this at the start or end, stating your overall opinion (only 1-2 sentences max).

Hope this makes sense

[successismygoal]

Thank you!

[yr12_vcestudent]

Hi Guys!
can someone please tell me what are some weakness of discovery of document
Thanks:)

[catnap]

Hi Guys!
can someone please tell me what are some weakness of discovery of document
Thanks:)

Hi there,
One weakness of discovery of documents (and can possibly be extended to the entirety of 'pre-trial procedures') is that the process of listing/inspecting documents, especially large quantities of documents, will take a lot of time to go through. This would cause delays in the civil legal system (reducing accessibility) as well as increasing the costs incurred for both parties (considering a lengthier trial would be more expensive). Civil cases already take a hefty amount of time to be resolved as it is, so you can see how that wouldn't really benefit our civil justice system.

[successismygoal]

Hello!

I have a question about how the Aus. Constitution acts as a check on parliament, through the bicameral structure.

So I've been reading about how if there is a majority in either the upper house or lower house, then there wont be as many 'debates' to scrutinise the bill and see if it is best suitable, and also read that if there is a majority in the Senate, then senators are more likely to vote in the interests of their political party rather than in the interests of their state. But with this, wouldn't they be voting in the interests of their state anyway, as the reason they have majority is because people in their state voted for them?

I am really confused with the majority votes affecting passing a bill. Can someone please explain this in detail? Textbook is a bit vague.

Thanks!

[yr12_vcestudent]

Hi Guys, can someone pls help me with these question:
Discuss the extent to which the Australian Constitution acts as a check on parliaments law-making powers, with specific reference to express rights and the bicameral structure of parliament
Thankssss

[SnekiSnek]

Hi Guys, can someone pls help me with these question:
Discuss the extent to which the Australian Constitution acts as a check on parliaments law-making powers, with specific reference to express rights and the bicameral structure of parliament
Thankssss

This specific question is asking how much certain sections in the Constitution are able to prevent parliament from abusing their power. So, for example, without the express rights set out in the Constitution, parliament could theoretically ban religious freedom as there isn't anything to act as a check on this. However to the extent, using the same example of express rights, there is only 5 express rights in the constitution and they don't cover other human rights issues

Also with the bicameral structure, how does having two houses prevent abuse of power? And if a government has majority in both houses is this a limitation on the bicameral structure acting as a check on parliament?