HSC Legal Studies Question Thread

[rodero]

Sorry to post again Hope you don't mind seeing my face around here too often ahah

I'm having a fair bit of trouble understanding the task, or rather what to study for. Would anyone here be able to give me a brief rundown of possible exam style questions regarding Family law and specific parts I would need to mention. The assessment notification is quite broad, it outlines how we should study recognition of same sex marriages, effectiveness of family law/law reforms and divorce and domestic violence. I'm quite genuinely confused as to what to look for and study for.

Should I be looking to get a laws/law reforms for each of the categories? 1 for Effectiveness/Ineffectiveness of Family law, Divorce and Domestic Violence?  What's an exam question that I should look out for/what's a good exam question to practice. I'll have a look through past papers and see if I come across anything.

Hey there,
Most essay questions are derived from the themes and challenges, which you can find at the beginning of each topic's syllabus. Based on what I've experienced as a legal studies student, questions in the options section generally involve a contemporary issue(s), which is then tagged with a theme/challenge.

If you take a look at the 2015 HSC Paper, the questions for Shelter seem to align with the themes and challenges, while also asking for a specific dot point from the syllabus. In this paper, it didn't ask for the contemporary issues but instead tested students knowledge from Section 2 of the syllabus, 'Legal protection and remedies associated with securing shelter'.

Overall, you want to be familiar with your themes and challenges and have some essay plans for each. As well as this, you should have specific cases which deal with all areas of the syllabus. When studying the options, I like to keep myself in the mindset that this will only be tested as a 25 mark essay.
With my limited amount of knowledge, I really do hope this helps. Let me know if you have more questions

[Mary_a]

Hey Guys,

I got my 1/2 yearly back for legal today. I'm aiming for a band 6, but by the looks of things I'm only at a band 5 level.
My first crime assessment was worth 10% and I got 83%
My 1/2 yearly was worth 20% and I got 80%

I am actually so disappointed because these are my lowest scores all year for the HSC and I need to get things up to scratch.

I would love some tips and opinions.

Thank you so much,

Mary x

[jamonwindeyer]

Hey Guys,

I got my 1/2 yearly back for legal today. I'm aiming for a band 6, but by the looks of things I'm only at a band 5 level.
My first crime assessment was worth 10% and I got 83%
My 1/2 yearly was worth 20% and I got 80%

I am actually so disappointed because these are my lowest scores all year for the HSC and I need to get things up to scratch.

I would love some tips and opinions.

Thank you so much,

Mary x

Hey Mary! First of all, those are awesome results! Being at that standard this early is exceptional - Of course it might not meet your personal expectations, but do know that you are in a good spot! you'll almost definitely improve and be at the 90's by the time the HSC rolls around

You need to figure out exactly where your marks went, and address those issues. Was it content? Was it arguments? Was it silly errors? Was it time management? The first step to improvement is laying out the steps to get you there, and that comes from giving yourself honest feedback and developing a plan of action

All the resources we have for Legal are collated in this thread - You should give these articles a read!

Be sure to let us know if we can help in any way

[Mary_a]

Hey Mary! First of all, those are awesome results! Being at that standard this early is exceptional - Of course it might not meet your personal expectations, but do know that you are in a good spot! you'll almost definitely improve and be at the 90's by the time the HSC rolls around

You need to figure out exactly where your marks went, and address those issues. Was it content? Was it arguments? Was it silly errors? Was it time management? The first step to improvement is laying out the steps to get you there, and that comes from giving yourself honest feedback and developing a plan of action

All the resources we have for Legal are collated in this thread - You should give these articles a read!

Be sure to let us know if we can help in any way

Hi Jamon,

Thank you. I've been fairly stressed about my 1/2 yearly results. Most of it was stupid errors like marking the writing answer in the answer booklet, but putting the correct one in my exam booklet. It was stress and I think I freaked myself out. The next task is a hand in, about a contemporary human rights issue. I understand that there is marking for advanced and extension essays, but is there possibly marking for legal assessments? I hope so.

Thank you so much,

Mary

[jamonwindeyer]

Hi Jamon,

Thank you. I've been fairly stressed about my 1/2 yearly results. Most of it was stupid errors like marking the writing answer in the answer booklet, but putting the correct one in my exam booklet. It was stress and I think I freaked myself out. The next task is a hand in, about a contemporary human rights issue. I understand that there is marking for advanced and extension essays, but is there possibly marking for legal assessments? I hope so.

Thank you so much,

Mary

Little things like that are easily fixed, and you will start to feel more relaxed in the exam room as you do more assessments and more practice papers!

Sure do, right here!

[kiiaaa]

hello
 could you please help me in understanding how the consitution, common and statutue law protects human rights and which of these are most effective? sort of confuzzled in this area
thanks heaps!

[LOVEPHYSICS]

What exactly are you confused about? Expressing your questions or uncertainties in written form is also a helpful step forward to learning.

[elysepopplewell]

hello
 could you please help me in understanding how the consitution, common and statutue law protects human rights and which of these are most effective? sort of confuzzled in this area
thanks heaps!

Hey kiiaaa, let's break this down!

According to the HSC syllabus, this is essentially what you need to know:

The Constitution
You need to know the difference between the express rights and the implied rights in the Constitution. Part of the strength of the Constitution is that it is nation-wide, so these rights are protected on a national level to create uniformity across the country. The express rights are the ones that are clearly and explicitly stated in the Constitution. There are just a few of these, and they can only be changed via a referendum, so they're pretty strongly protected. These are the five express rights:

Right to "just terms" with the compulsory acquisition of property in section 51 (xxxi) (The movie, The Castle, deals with this )
Right to trial by jury in section 80
Right to free interstate trade and trade in section 92
Freedom of religion in section 116
Freedom from discrimination based on one's state of residence in section 117.

The implied rights are taken from the Constitution. Implied rights give the Constitution a sort of unusual flexibility. The High Court is the ability to make rights-based rulings that are consistent with changing social values, expectations, circumstances, as well as showing consistency with the content of the Constitution. The supposed implied right that sticks out the most to me was clarified in the case Lange v. Australian Broadcasting Commission (1997). This basically declared, the right to the freedom of speech is not unlimited in Australia, because one can be defamed. The ABC appealed that Freedom of Speech was an implied right, and the High Court ruled that although Freedom of Speech exists in Australia, it is not unlimited.

The protection of human rights in the Constitution is strong, given that the process of changing the protection of these rights is not easy: it requires a referendum. But, quality or quantity? Because there are very few rights actually contained in the Constitution.

Common Law
We inherited our common law system from the United Kingdom, which includes the Magna Carta (perhaps the first official human rights treaty). Sometimes common law is referred to as judge-made law. For example, the court must refuse to let a trial go ahead if it is deemed to not be a fair trial.

Common law can be reduced or expanded by legislation made in Parliament.

Statute Law
As for statute law, this is made in Parliament. Unlike the Constitution, this is not necessarily nation wide. It may be country-wide, though! Examples include: Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cwlth), the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cwlth)(11) and the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cwlth). Statute law has a weakness in dealing with human rights because legislation can be overturned by an act of Parliament without the requirement of a referendum. This can turn into a bit of a political game, because parties in power recognise their ability to change statute law. This was quite controversial during the Howard Government's time in relation to the Wik Decision. So, although the strength of the protection is weaker than it is in the Constitution, statue law provides protection for a greater variety of human rights.


Then it is to be considered, should Australia have a bill of rights? This is in the syllabus as well so you'll no doubt get to that soon!
-

As a separate thing, I think this article is worth a read. It addresses the culture of human rights in Australia. It's just an opinion piece, but might give you some insight!

This is also a link here to the AHRC, which breaks it down as well

[chelseam]

Hi! I understand that a treaty is an international agreement between 2 (or more) nation states, but I'm confused about the difference between a treaty and a covenant. Could someone please clarify what a covenant is? Thank you

[jamonwindeyer]

Hi! I understand that a treaty is an international agreement between 2 (or more) nation states, but I'm confused about the difference between a treaty and a covenant. Could someone please clarify what a covenant is? Thank you

Hey Chelsea! In terms of the HSC (and perhaps broadly, I've never read anything to suggest otherwise!) the two terms are synonymous. Meaning, they are the same! If there are differences, you don't need them in the HSC - As long as you refer to examples with the proper term, the actual difference is irrelevant Don't call it the Treaty on the Rights of the Child for example (TROC is a noticeably more humorous acronym than CROC for some reason, aha!)

[chelseam]

Don't call it the Treaty on the Rights of the Child for example (TROC is a noticeably more humorous acronym than CROC for some reason, aha!)

HAHAHAHA 😂😂 Thanks so much Jamon!

[kiiaaa]

Hey kiiaaa, let's break this down!

According to the HSC syllabus, this is essentially what you need to know:

The Constitution
You need to know the difference between the express rights and the implied rights in the Constitution. Part of the strength of the Constitution is that it is nation-wide, so these rights are protected on a national level to create uniformity across the country. The express rights are the ones that are clearly and explicitly stated in the Constitution. There are just a few of these, and they can only be changed via a referendum, so they're pretty strongly protected. These are the five express rights:

Right to "just terms" with the compulsory acquisition of property in section 51 (xxxi) (The movie, The Castle, deals with this )
Right to trial by jury in section 80
Right to free interstate trade and trade in section 92
Freedom of religion in section 116
Freedom from discrimination based on one's state of residence in section 117.

The implied rights are taken from the Constitution. Implied rights give the Constitution a sort of unusual flexibility. The High Court is the ability to make rights-based rulings that are consistent with changing social values, expectations, circumstances, as well as showing consistency with the content of the Constitution. The supposed implied right that sticks out the most to me was clarified in the case Lange v. Australian Broadcasting Commission (1997). This basically declared, the right to the freedom of speech is not unlimited in Australia, because one can be defamed. The ABC appealed that Freedom of Speech was an implied right, and the High Court ruled that although Freedom of Speech exists in Australia, it is not unlimited.

The protection of human rights in the Constitution is strong, given that the process of changing the protection of these rights is not easy: it requires a referendum. But, quality or quantity? Because there are very few rights actually contained in the Constitution.

Common Law
We inherited our common law system from the United Kingdom, which includes the Magna Carta (perhaps the first official human rights treaty). Sometimes common law is referred to as judge-made law. For example, the court must refuse to let a trial go ahead if it is deemed to not be a fair trial.

Common law can be reduced or expanded by legislation made in Parliament.

Statute Law
As for statute law, this is made in Parliament. Unlike the Constitution, this is not necessarily nation wide. It may be country-wide, though! Examples include: Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cwlth), the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cwlth)(11) and the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cwlth). Statute law has a weakness in dealing with human rights because legislation can be overturned by an act of Parliament without the requirement of a referendum. This can turn into a bit of a political game, because parties in power recognise their ability to change statute law. This was quite controversial during the Howard Government's time in relation to the Wik Decision. So, although the strength of the protection is weaker than it is in the Constitution, statue law provides protection for a greater variety of human rights.


Then it is to be considered, should Australia have a bill of rights? This is in the syllabus as well so you'll no doubt get to that soon!
-

As a separate thing, I think this article is worth a read. It addresses the culture of human rights in Australia. It's just an opinion piece, but might give you some insight!

This is also a link here to the AHRC, which breaks it down as well

thank you so much elyse! your so helpful

[anotherworld2b]

Hi I was just wondering if I could get some tips on how develop my response. I tried to approach this question but I'm not how I could reflect a critical understanding and explore the question further. At this point I feel like I'm simply writing out information. 

Discuss the following statement: ‘Since federation, the balance of power has slowly shifted from the states to a dominance of the federal government.’  Investigate this topic and prepare an in-class essay that reflects a CRITICAL understanding of the topic.

[LOVEPHYSICS]

You can break up the prompt and think of it in parts.

1. Has the balance of powers shifted? If so, what powers or areas specifically?
2. How has change been brought about, i.e. through what mechanisms or agents?
3. Why has the balance shifted? Or what are some reasons for the change?
4. Is the current state desirable? What are some possible dangers or disadvantages in shifting to a more centralised system?

[kiiaaa]

hello everyone

could someone please explain to me the Wei Tang case for human trafficking and slavery? the textbook i use confuses me for what happened for her conviction and retrail.

thank you so much