VCE Legal Studies Question Thread

[cisforcereal]

Hey there, sorry if this has already been asked:

Is mediation legally binding? I'd been taught that it wasn't, but 2010 and 2012 reports say it is...? Would it be a good idea to leave this point out of any evaluate/compare question to be safe or how could I go about incorporating it into an argument?

Edit:
2010 exam report - Q5 compares arbitration and mediation, I think:
Sim:
• Both can result in a final decision that is binding, although the nature of the decision differs.

Diff:
• Decision – in arbitration the decision is binding, whereas in mediation the decision is not binding unless the
parties sign formal terms at its conclusion.

2012 exam report
Weaknesses (of mediation)
• Not binding: unless the parties enter into a binding agreement or terms of settlement at the end of the
mediation, the decision is not binding, thus risking one party reneging on their promise.

When comparing mediation, can I still use not legally binding as a point, but follow it up with unless the
parties sign formal terms at its conclusion and still have it be different from arbitration? Thanks in advance!

[Shanae1997]

I have 3 questions

Firstly, when it comes to the role of the inquisitorial judge, is there one judge that can conduct both the investigation and questioning of witnesses at trial? or are there 2 different judges, an investigating judge that gathers the evidence, and a trial judge who is able to question witnesses?

Secondly, my text book does not offer a very good explanation of a directions hearing. What happens at a directions hearing? Also does a directions hearing clarify issues before going to court if so, how?

Finally, Q9.c on the CPAP 2013 practice examination no.2 says
"Anna and Stephen have worked together for ten years, with Anna purchasing goods from
Stephen to sell in her store. Recently they discovered they have been keeping secrets from
each other.
Anna has been trying to sell the business, even though she owes Stephen a lot of money for
items she bought on credit because he trusts her; while Stephen has been selling Anna faulty
items.
The mess is too big for Stephen and Anna to negotiate together and they have asked for your
help. Advise them on what you think the best avenue and method of resolution would be for
them, giving reasons for your answer."

Do we need the evaluate both the strengths and weaknesses of our chosen method and avenue or is it acceptable to argue just the strengths of our chosen method and avenue and compare them to the weaknesses of the other options?

Thanks

[M_BONG]

I have 3 questions

Firstly, when it comes to the role of the inquisitorial judge, is there one judge that can conduct both the investigation and questioning of witnesses at trial? or are there 2 different judges, an investigating judge that gathers the evidence, and a trial judge who is able to question witnesses?

Secondly, my text book does not offer a very good explanation of a directions hearing. What happens at a directions hearing? Also does a directions hearing clarify issues before going to court if so, how?

I think they have separate judges - an investigating magistrate and the trial judge, to keep things separate and independent. But they're all "judges" and the investigating magistrate compiles a dossier, questions witnesses etc. and assists the trial judge so they are not completely separate. But I don't think the trial judge does the bulk of the investigation.

Direction hearings = a brief hearing/ mainly administrative where issues are clarified: usually the final stages before the actual trial - lasts for like 15 mins (well, I attended two during work experience in year 10 and they were really brief). Thing I would say here is that ADR is most likely to be ordered here in civil matters.

Your third question, I will just leave to megan since she wrote that exam .

Hey there, sorry if this has already been asked:

Is mediation legally binding? I'd been taught that it wasn't, but 2010 and 2012 reports say it is...? Would it be a good idea to leave this point out of any evaluate/compare question to be safe or how could I go about incorporating it into an argument?

Edit:
2010 exam report - Q5 compares arbitration and mediation, I think:
Sim:
• Both can result in a final decision that is binding, although the nature of the decision differs.

Diff:
• Decision – in arbitration the decision is binding, whereas in mediation the decision is not binding unless the
parties sign formal terms at its conclusion.

2012 exam report
Weaknesses (of mediation)
• Not binding: unless the parties enter into a binding agreement or terms of settlement at the end of the
mediation, the decision is not binding, thus risking one party reneging on their promise.

When comparing mediation, can I still use not legally binding as a point, but follow it up with unless the
parties sign formal terms at its conclusion and still have it be different from arbitration? Thanks in advance!

Yeah you can say that. I wrote mediation is not legally binding - period - in the exam and I don't think I lost any marks. But yeah, mediation technically only legally binding if they sign a deed of settlement (not sure how much power that has)...

just a question
when discussing the referendum (1967) how much info do we have to go into when talking about the background of it, like prior to conducting the referendum?

I think you should talk about mainly (as the study design says) how the division of power changed. You should add a few sentences of background info - don't completely discard it - such as, it recorded the "largest yes vote of around 91%" - and it is only one or two referenda that changed the d.o.p. Nothing beyond that, I recond.

In terms of impact, try to be specific - don't just list all the things it accomplished such as adding Aborigines to Fed census or allowing Fed parliament to make laws for them. But say, a residual power became a concurrent power, in favour of the Commonwealth parliament. s109 now applies, eroding some of the state's law-making powers etc.

[Politics]

I'm really struggling on this one question

"How would the removal of committal hearings contribute to effective operation of the legal system, referencing the 3 elements of an effective legal system"

Any help would be appreciated!

[jessicafoster]

when discussing referendum 1967, it will be best to mention the cancellation of s51 and s127 right?

[meganrobyn]

Finally, Q9.c on the CPAP 2013 practice examination no.2 says
"Anna and Stephen have worked together for ten years, with Anna purchasing goods from
Stephen to sell in her store. Recently they discovered they have been keeping secrets from
each other.
Anna has been trying to sell the business, even though she owes Stephen a lot of money for
items she bought on credit because he trusts her; while Stephen has been selling Anna faulty
items.
The mess is too big for Stephen and Anna to negotiate together and they have asked for your
help. Advise them on what you think the best avenue and method of resolution would be for
them, giving reasons for your answer."

Do we need the evaluate both the strengths and weaknesses of our chosen method and avenue or is it acceptable to argue just the strengths of our chosen method and avenue and compare them to the weaknesses of the other options?

Thanks

I specifically wrote that question to force people to make choices about what content they wanted to include and how they wanted to structure it. It might be slightly more ambiguous than something on the actual exam, but I've noticed that students avoid open-ended questions like there's something terrifying about them so I deliberately wanted that ambiguity. It's funny, because open-ended questions are often gifts: they let you choose what points you're best at, and structure your answer in the way that works best for you! And there aren't a whole bunch of 'compulsory' points you can overlook and that can kind of cap your marks.

Anyway! I left out any task word such as 'evaluate' or 'analyse' because I wanted you to choose the most logical way to answer, that used your best content. Therefore, I believe either method you outlined would be appropriate, and would respond to the wording of the question.

Personally, I would chuck in just a couple of weaknesses of the method and avenue I chose, almost as caveats or "even though..." points - simply because you're already learned them and written them up in your notes and memorised them, so why not get a little credit? But I didn't intend that to be 100% required by the question.

[drmockingbird]

I specifically wrote that question to force people to make choices about what content they wanted to include and how they wanted to structure it. It might be slightly more ambiguous than something on the actual exam, but I've noticed that students avoid open-ended questions like there's something terrifying about them so I deliberately wanted that ambiguity. It's funny, because open-ended questions are often gifts: they let you choose what points you're best at, and structure your answer in the way that works best for you! And there aren't a whole bunch of 'compulsory' points you can overlook and that can kind of cap your marks.

Anyway! I left out any task word such as 'evaluate' or 'analyse' because I wanted you to choose the most logical way to answer, that used your best content. Therefore, I believe either method you outlined would be appropriate, and would respond to the wording of the question.

Personally, I would chuck in just a couple of weaknesses of the method and avenue I chose, almost as caveats or "even though..." points - simply because you're already learned them and written them up in your notes and memorised them, so why not get a little credit? But I didn't intend that to be 100% required by the question.

I thought I liked you Megan, until i read this

[Jawnle]

Discuss the extent to which an injunction may achieve its purpose. (3 marks)

One non-financial remedy is an injunction. This is a court order that aims to compel the defendant to either undertake, or refrain from undertaking, actions to rectify or prevent a breach of rights. The purpose of this remedy is to ensure that the rights of the plaintiff may be restored as far as possible, or to prevent their rights from being breached any further and is effective in doing so given that it is enforceable if the opposing party breaches the terms. However, ....

What's a point that shows injunctions do not achieve their purpose?

Thanks guys!

[Alter]

Discuss the extent to which an injunction may achieve its purpose. (3 marks)

One non-financial remedy is an injunction. This is a court order that aims to compel the defendant to either undertake, or refrain from undertaking, actions to rectify or prevent a breach of rights. The purpose of this remedy is to ensure that the rights of the plaintiff may be restored as far as possible, or to prevent their rights from being breached any further and is effective in doing so given that it is enforceable if the opposing party breaches the terms. However, ....

What's a point that shows injunctions do not achieve their purpose?

In the event that a person has suffered from financial loss or emotional loss, an injunction may be insufficient in restoring an individual to the position they were in prior to infringement. For example, in a medical malpractice case, if I got my arm chopped off, no mandatory injunction to resew my arm back on could restore any money I lost a) from missed work or b) from the emotional hardship I experienced as a result of the accident.

[AmericanBeauty]

Discuss the extent to which an injunction may achieve its purpose. (3 marks)

One non-financial remedy is an injunction. This is a court order that aims to compel the defendant to either undertake, or refrain from undertaking, actions to rectify or prevent a breach of rights. The purpose of this remedy is to ensure that the rights of the plaintiff may be restored as far as possible, or to prevent their rights from being breached any further and is effective in doing so given that it is enforceable if the opposing party breaches the terms. However, ....

What's a point that shows injunctions do not achieve their purpose?

Thanks guys!

You should also specify that injunctions have a purposeful timeframe. i.e. interlocutory and permanent.

A limit of injunctions is that they pretty much don't receive what damages give to properly restore the plaintiff. Also if they have like emotional trauma etc. they won't be restored.

[meganrobyn]

I thought I liked you Megan, until i read this

It's okay: no-one really likes me once they get to know me. You're not alone.

[AmericanBeauty]

With regards to the effects on shifts in the division of powers with regards to referendum and high court interpretation, how much are you meant to know about cases?

There have been like four mark questions asking me to analyse the impact of a high court interpretation on the division of powers using a case you have studied. I don't know if I have to solely base everything around that case, or if I can talk about the impact of HC interpretations like it being given meaning or solving disputes among parliaments unsure of their jurisdictions, and also include a little bit of fact about the case and its impact? With HC interpretation (and referendum) I have very little go on. i.e. with regards to the Franklin Dam Case, all I can really say is that Cth was able to make laws in an area of residual laws when using their power of external affairs when acting under obligations of international treaties, thus states saw a loss of power and Cth saw an increase in power at the expense of states becoming concurrent.

Would that be right or am I doing it wrong? When it has questions like with regards to a case, analyse the impact. .. I dont know if it has to be all on the case cause if it is I'll fail.

[Politics]

Sorry for double post, I just really am struggling with this.

"How would the removal of committal hearings contribute to effective operation of the legal system, referencing the 3 elements of an effective legal system"

Any help would be appreciated!

[jessicafoster]

One successful referendum on the impact of division of law making powers (4 marks)
Referendums generally do not have a great impact on the division of law making powers, as the process (as stipulated under s128) is an immensely difficult process. Only 8 out of 44 referendums have succeeded, 4 altering the division of law making powers including 2 on state debts, one on social securities, and another pertaining to aboriginal affairs.

The 1967 Referendum revolved around whether the Cth could make laws in respects to the Indigenous, and if the Indigenous should be included in the national Census. Prior to the referendum, all Aboriginal affairs were left to the States as they were deemed to have more specialised knowledge, and the Indigenous Australians were not included in the Australian Census. However, after the referendum was conducted, a clear majority showcased the need for change, specifically 90.77%.

The impact of the referendum was that s51(xxvi) was amended, and s127 was discarded, thus allowing Aboriginals to be included ‘in the reckoning of the population’. Aboriginal affairs was now a concurrent powers (previously a residual power), thus granting more power in favour of the Cth as they could legislate in areas that were previously the domain of the states. S109 now applies pertaining to Aboriginal affairs, thus eroding some law making powers of the States.




ummmm is this ok?

[Politics]

How did it become a concurrent power? I've heard that said a couple times?