VCE Legal Studies Question Thread

[M_BONG]

Thanks chasej, the 2nd point made sense but I'm still slightly confused about the first one. Is common law a set of precedents? Could you provide an example?

For our purposes, they are exactly the same thing.

A common law established by a court is the same thing as a precedent established. Take the "neighbour principle" from Donoghue vs Stevenson, we all learned about.. you can call that a "common law" established or a "precedent" established. There is no difference.

However, common law also commonly (haha) refers to the legal system we have inherited from England (the Adversary System) versus the Civil Law system (from the Roman Empire); so here is where the words "common law" can be used in a different context.

[90ATAR]

What do you need to get on the final exam to get a 50 - flawless or room for an error or two?

What about 45+? Sorry for the pedantic question.

[Duyyy11]

What do you need to get on the final exam to get a 50 - flawless or room for an error or two?

What about 45+? Sorry for the pedantic question.

I'm going to assume that there is no hard and fast rule i.e what marks will get you what study score.

As of 2013, an A+ for Unit 3 was 92/100
Unit 4: 92/100
Exam: 119/140 (85%)

To obtain a 50, I'll assume you will need to be nearly at the maximum of all these A+ ranges.

[90ATAR]

Dam that sucks! I will hopefully (fingers crossed) get 21+ for my AOS3 SAC tomorrow which would put me at 92/100 but #1 in cohort. I thought if you were ranked one then SAC scores didn't matter and you could kill the exam, and you get the exam as both your exam and SAC then 50 bam.

[chasej]

Dam that sucks! I will hopefully (fingers crossed) get 21+ for my AOS3 SAC tomorrow which would put me at 92/100 but #1 in cohort. I thought if you were ranked one then SAC scores didn't matter and you could kill the exam, and you get the exam as both your exam and SAC then 50 bam.

that's correct. rank 1+full mark exam =50SS

[El-Baba]

Hey guys,

I've been revising on the division of powers between Commonwealth and state parliaments and forgot what the difference is between specific and exclusive powers

Can anyone distinguish and clarify the difference between the two? And I also don't understand how specific powers is defined as powers provided solely to the Commonwealth, when states have concurrent powers

 A reply will be greatly appreciated

[M_BONG]

Hey guys,

I've been revising on the division of powers between Commonwealth and state parliaments and forgot what the difference is between specific and exclusive powers

Can anyone distinguish and clarify the difference between the two? And I also don't understand how specific powers is defined as powers provided solely to the Commonwealth, when states have concurrent powers

 A reply will be greatly appreciated

Hang on I think you're getting something confused.

As far I remember, specific powers are merely powers listed in the Commonwealth Constitution. The States can still exercise them; so

 

And I also don't understand how specific powers is defined as powers provided solely to the Commonwealth, when states have concurrent powers

this is not quite correct. Specific powers can be either: exclusive or concurrent. Remember, specific powers are merely powers listed in the Constitution. However, exclusive rights are rights made *exclusive* to the Commonwealth, usually by another section in the Constitution. Eg. The right to coinage/create legal tender is a specific power rendered exclusive due to a section in the Constitution that excludes States from exercising this right.

IF there is no section in the Constitution prohibiting a State from exercising a listed right (specific right), that right is known as a concurrent power (shared) with s109 used to settle inconsistencies.

[chasej]

Specific powers: Listed in the constitution as being within the jurisdiction of the commonwealth parliament, made up of both concurrent and exclusive powers.

Exclusive powers: Specific powers listed in the constition which only the commonwealth parliament can legislate in either by the nature of the power or by virtue of specific wording in the constitution, meaning the states cannot legislate in these areas.

Concurrent powers: Areas of law making powers listed in the constition as a power of the commonwealth, however not made exclusive to the commonwealth, hence both the states and commonwealth can legislate in the area, although following S109 of the constitution if inconsistencies between laws in concurrent areas of power exist, the commonwealth law would prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.

[El-Baba]

I was previously confused, and, now I'm increasingly confused :/

Are such powers solely listed in the constitution? Or are they powers the Commonwealth possess and can in a way influence (e.g. s.109 override)? Or both?

[chasej]

I was previously confused, and, now I'm increasingly confused :/

Are such powers solely listed in the constitution? Or are they powers the Commonwealth possess and can in a way influence (e.g. s.109 override)? Or both?

The specific powers are the powers listed in the constitution as being within the area of the commonwealth's jurisdiction.

Powers are essentially areas of law, so specific powers are the areas of law the parliament can legislate in following the constitution.

-Section like S109 don't actually effect the Commonwealth's powers as they don't alter the areas of law the commonwealth can legislate but rather provide moreso an administrative solution to inconsistencies in the law-S109 is in the constitution.

Essentially the basis of the commonwealth's powers (areas of law it can legislate) are in the constitution, by definition, the constitioutoin is the framework of government.

[M_BONG]

I was previously confused, and, now I'm increasingly confused :/

Are such powers solely listed in the constitution? Or are they powers the Commonwealth possess and can in a way influence (e.g. s.109 override)? Or both?

Ok the Commonwealth can only fully exercise these specific powers if they can pass a High Court ruling. So although s51 might grant the Commonwealth some rights, if the High Court interprets the wording/nuances of that wording differently than what is literally written in the Constitution, the Commonwealth cannot exercise those rights.

So to answer the first part of your question, no, the Constitution is not the sole source of the Cwlth Parliament's specific powers. Common law (ie. precedents) also determine how the Commonwealth can exercise those specific powers (to answer the first part of that question).

Your second part of the question is quite confusing; but think of it this way: any right (eg. public transport or IVF) that is NOT listed in the Commonwealth Constitution CANNOT be exercised by the Commonwealth Parliament. This is known as a residual power (given to the States) and the Commonwealth cannot exercise these rights, so yes you can say that the Cwlth Consitution lists all the powers that the Commonwealth possesses. The Commonwealth parliament can only make laws that are listed in the Commonwealth Constitution, or other rights given to it by the High Court through case interpretation.

The last part of your question is about s109. As Chasej and I have stated, there are two types of Commonwealth (specific) power. They can either be exclusive (only Cwlth can exercise) or concurrent (shared between state and Commonwealth). Since there are *some* rights that both Commonwealth and State can occur, what happens in a concurrent power when the State disagrees with the Commonwealth? We can't have two different laws that say different things, right? How would we know which one to follow? This is where s109 comes in. There are two "tests":

1. A High Court/Federal Court case is initiated, by a party affected by this inconsistency
2. The High Court/Federal Court agrees/interprets that the inconsistency exists.

In *any* case, the Commonwealth law will prevail over the State law, in areas of concurrency, to the extent of the inconsistency. So, basically s109 is essentially just a "troubleshooter" or resolver of conflict in the rare occassion where in concurrent powers, state and Cwlth law clash.


Remember, s109 only applies in areas of concurrent powers. It's not an overriding provision where the Commonwealth can make some random law (eg. terrorism laws) and override the States in any instances. Why? Because terrorism laws is not a specific power - it's a residual power - only exercisable by the states.

Glad to help with any further question/ if anyone wants to correct me if I have said anything incorrect.

[El-Baba]

omg I feel like I was born with a missing chromosome, how did I get confused over that -.-

to hell with confusing oneself

thanks for the help guys, greatly appreciated

[aqple]

'Describe two reasons for a court hierarchy' (4)

So for this question, my teacher said this would gain 2 marks:

'One reason for a court hierarchy is that they allow for the hearing of appeals. A party to a case can appeal to a higher, more superior court if they feel the decision in their case was unjust, provided that they can establish grounds for appeal. This provides fairness and the opportunity for unjust decisions to be corrected and without court hierarchies, there would be no superior courts to which an appeal could be made.'

Isn't this too much information for 2 marks? (given that the question is 4 marks and I need to give another reason) Because I feel this would be too much writing for such a simply question (75 words). Shouldn't giving a reason and a description be enough, without mentioning how it is dependent on the existence of court hierarchies and what it provides?

[meganrobyn]

'Describe two reasons for a court hierarchy' (4)

So for this question, my teacher said this would gain 2 marks:

'One reason for a court hierarchy is that they allow for the hearing of appeals. A party to a case can appeal to a higher, more superior court if they feel the decision in their case was unjust, provided that they can establish grounds for appeal. This provides fairness and the opportunity for unjust decisions to be corrected and without court hierarchies, there would be no superior courts to which an appeal could be made.'

Isn't this too much information for 2 marks? (given that the question is 4 marks and I need to give another reason) Because I feel this would be too much writing for such a simply question (75 words). Shouldn't giving a reason and a description be enough, without mentioning how it is dependent on the existence of court hierarchies and what it provides?

Nope - that's perfect. If you don't link it to a hierarchy and say why it's good, you haven't actually answered the question. Your teacher has given you an awesome answer.

One mark is 1.7 minutes of writing - you couldn't write the above answer in 2-3 minutes? I'm not saying that EVERY assessor would require every word of this for full marks (blanket statements like that are never more than mere guesses and are silly to make), but why take a risk if you have the time to do a solid job?

[aqple]

Nope - that's perfect. If you don't link it to a hierarchy and say why it's good, you haven't actually answered the question. Your teacher has given you an awesome answer.

One mark is 1.7 minutes of writing - you couldn't write the above answer in 2-3 minutes? I'm not saying that EVERY assessor would require every word of this for full marks (blanket statements like that are never more than mere guesses and are silly to make), but why take a risk if you have the time to do a solid job?

Thanks! Legal studies is pretty much a handwriting exercise for me after all