VCE Legal Studies Question Thread

[clarke54321]

Hi guys,

My teacher has given me an 8 mark questions which reads, 'It has been suggested the a single level of courts rather than a hierarchical system should operate in Victoria.'

I am finding it difficult to formulate arguments in regards to having a one-court system and in turn teasing out an answers suitable to achieve 8 marks.

The only arguments I can think of are:

-PRO One-court:
All matters would be able to be heard in the one place, reducing the confusion which litigants may have when deciding on which court they should be taking their case.

-CON of this, which the court hierarchy overcomes.
It would be an administrative nightmare. The court prevents this by having the lower courts dealing with minor cases quickly and the higher courts hearing the more time consuming, complicated cases which reduces delays.


-PRO One-Court:
It would reduce the number of appeals being made, reducing costs for the parties involved and the legal system.

-CON of this, which the court hierarchy overcomes.
Appeals are able to rectify a possible injustice made by a lower court, thereby providing justice for parties to a case.


I can't think of any others as this is not really discussed in the textbook nor been assessed by VCAA in recent years. Could you please offer advice?

[meganrobyn]

Hi guys,

My teacher has given me an 8 mark questions which reads, 'It has been suggested the a single level of courts rather than a hierarchical system should operate in Victoria.'

I am finding it difficult to formulate arguments in regards to having a one-court system and in turn teasing out an answers suitable to achieve 8 marks.

The only arguments I can think of are:

-PRO One-court:
All matters would be able to be heard in the one place, reducing the confusion which litigants may have when deciding on which court they should be taking their case.

-CON of this, which the court hierarchy overcomes.
It would be an administrative nightmare. The court prevents this by having the lower courts dealing with minor cases quickly and the higher courts hearing the more time consuming, complicated cases which reduces delays.


-PRO One-Court:
It would reduce the number of appeals being made, reducing costs for the parties involved and the legal system.

-CON of this, which the court hierarchy overcomes.
Appeals are able to rectify a possible injustice made by a lower court, thereby providing justice for parties to a case.


I can't think of any others as this is not really discussed in the textbook nor been assessed by VCAA in recent years. Could you please offer advice?

No, it's just slightly different wording of exactly the same question you've seen a million times before! It's just asking for reasons for a court hierarchy - no court hierarchy (vertical) means none of the benefits you've got as reasons. If you want to do a flipside and add a benefit of a flat hierarchy, you've already got that: less confusing. It's just getting enough detail for 8 marks (a kind of crazy number of marks for that sub-topic, btw). So, use ALL your reasons, talk about the negatives of NOT having them, include your advantage of a flat hierarchy, and illustrate with examples of cases and jurisdiction.

(Also, you don't reduce appeals in a flat system - you eliminate them. Because an appeal relies on the subsequent court having authority, and a flat system takes out the authority. The only way you could have an appeal is to have a retrial system where the most recent judgment always wins - but, then, without authority, how do you even order retrials?)

[chasej]

how do you even order retrials?

off topic - but I speculate there would need to be different divisions in the same court so they would essentially be a hierarchy anyway.

[meganrobyn]

off topic - but I speculate there would need to be different divisions in the same court so they would essentially be a hierarchy anyway.

No, because those divisions wouldn't be based on authority. Like the Mag's has lateral, or horizontal, specialised divisions, but they have nothing to do with a hierarchy in the Mag's - based on topic, essentially. Separate but equal, the way the US never quite achieved

[nm4065]

Hi, does anyone know if VCAT follows any form of precedent?

[HopefulLawStudent]

Hi, does anyone know if VCAT follows any form of precedent?

Tbh, I think legally speaking, it's a no cuz they're not in the court system. BUT logically they would follow established precedent becausze duh, if VCAT makes a decision that goes against an established system, the person would just appeal it in the courts. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[chasej]

Hi, does anyone know if VCAT follows any form of precedent?

VCAT does follow decisions of higher courts, even though VCAT is not a court itself it still follows the common law.

'VCAT is bound to follow the decisions of superior courts such as the High Court of
Australia and the Supreme Court of Victoria. On the other hand, VCAT is not strictly
bound to follow its own decisions. Although guideline decisions will not be binding, the intention is that they would normally be followed.'

https://www.vcat.vic.gov.au/adv/disputes/planning-and-environment/decisions-0

[clarke54321]

Hey everyone,

When I'm referring to the role of the third party in arbitration, is it sufficient to say that the arbitrator listens to both sides and then makes a decision which is binding on the parties. In my textbook it talks of the arbitrator helping the disputing parties to negotiate for themselves, but I thought that the arbitrator only listened to the parties and then came to a decision.

Thank-you 

[meganrobyn]

Hey everyone,

When I'm referring to the role of the third party in arbitration, is it sufficient to say that the arbitrator listens to both sides and then makes a decision which is binding on the parties. In my textbook it talks of the arbitrator helping the disputing parties to negotiate for themselves, but I thought that the arbitrator only listened to the parties and then came to a decision.

Thank-you 

What you've said is probably sufficient.

For the sake of accuracy, though, an arbitrator (because they're not a judicial officer and it's not a judicial proceeding) can facilitate discussion in the hearing, and allow the parties to negotiate. They can even encourage it. The final decision is theirs, though (although they'll usually respect the wishes of the parties).

[clarke54321]

Sorry for all the questions guys.

When responding to an evaluate question, can I state my position from the beginning? Or do I just get straight into the evaluation and then come to my final position at the end (I suppose this is the aim of an evaluation). If this is the case, do I begin my answer with a sentence of context to ease into my answer?

Thanks

[meganrobyn]

Sorry for all the questions guys.

When responding to an evaluate question, can I state my position from the beginning? Or do I just get straight into the evaluation and then come to my final position at the end (I suppose this is the aim of an evaluation). If this is the case, do I begin my answer with a sentence of context to ease into my answer?

Thanks

That's what the board is here for! And you help others, and you don't ask questions that expect someone else to write entire answers for you instead of you doing the work, so it's all good

State it from the beginning. It's safer, because then you've checked a criteria box off from the start. Don't worry about a fluffy context sentence.

[clarke54321]

Hey everyone,

I have two questions.

Firstly, with a question like the following:

Evaluate one strength of conciliation and one strength of mediation as methods of dispute resolution. Which method do you consider to be more effective? Justify your answer. (5 marks)

Does my strength of conciliation have to be limited to the fact the conciliators can offer suggestions or solutions to the parties and my strength of mediation that the parties come to their own solution with only the facilitation of the mediator since I have to come to the conclusion of which is more effective? Or can, for example, I say a strength of conciliation is that there are no strict rules of evidence and procedure (even though this is also the case for mediation)?


My second questions relates to this:

Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the methods used by courts and VCAT to resolve civil disputes. (10 marks)

I am having issues with the structure. Is the question asking me to come to the conclusion of whether VCAT or the courts are more effective means for settling disputes? Also, am I able to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the courts first and then VCAT?

Thanks very much 

Thanks

[meganrobyn]

Hey everyone,

I have two questions.

Firstly, with a question like the following:

Evaluate one strength of conciliation and one strength of mediation as methods of dispute resolution. Which method do you consider to be more effective? Justify your answer. (5 marks)

Does my strength of conciliation have to be limited to the fact the conciliators can offer suggestions or solutions to the parties and my strength of mediation that the parties come to their own solution with only the facilitation of the mediator since I have to come to the conclusion of which is more effective? Or can, for example, I say a strength of conciliation is that there are no strict rules of evidence and procedure (even though this is also the case for mediation)?


My second questions relates to this:

Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the methods used by courts and VCAT to resolve civil disputes. (10 marks)

I am having issues with the structure. Is the question asking me to come to the conclusion of whether VCAT or the courts are more effective means for settling disputes? Also, am I able to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the courts first and then VCAT?

Thanks very much 

Thanks

With the first question:

It doesn't say you need to evaluate the same feature for both, so you can mix and match. If you want your opinion to sound properly good, though, it would probably need to make sense of the two different features you're evaluating - eg along the lines of 'having this strength A is better than having this other strength B, even though both have limitations'.

Just as a content point: mediation does have strict rules of procedure. It doesn't use 'evidence' per se, so it doesn't have rules of evidence, but because the two parties have to be kept in line and the discussion needs to stay fair and constructive etc there are pretty formal rules of procedure that are followed. You can download copies of them from various places.

With the second question:

You've misread the question. The word attached to the task word is 'methods', not venues/avenues (ie not VCAT and courts). It merely clarifies which methods it's talking about by saying the methods that are *used* in VCAT and courts (ie all four methods on the SD).

[clarke54321]

With the first question:

It doesn't say you need to evaluate the same feature for both, so you can mix and match. If you want your opinion to sound properly good, though, it would probably need to make sense of the two different features you're evaluating - eg along the lines of 'having this strength A is better than having this other strength B, even though both have limitations'.

Just as a content point: mediation does have strict rules of procedure. It doesn't use 'evidence' per se, so it doesn't have rules of evidence, but because the two parties have to be kept in line and the discussion needs to stay fair and constructive etc there are pretty formal rules of procedure that are followed. You can download copies of them from various places.

With the second question:

You've misread the question. The word attached to the task word is 'methods', not venues/avenues (ie not VCAT and courts). It merely clarifies which methods it's talking about by saying the methods that are *used* in VCAT and courts (ie all four methods on the SD).

Thank-you for this meganrobyn. 

[meganrobyn]

Thank-you for this meganrobyn. 

My pleasure. And, just with the structure, it's totally flexible. Start with your argument/opinion, to be safe, then you can structure it however you think is logical. I personally prefer paragraphs based on features, then cover all the methods S&W on that feature within that paragraph.