VCE Legal Studies Question Thread

[meganrobyn]

When evaluating the operation of courts and VCAT, do we have to come to a conclusion as to which avenue is better or more effective at resolving civil disputes, or can we come to the conclusion that their effectiveness depends on the type of dispute, as the strengths and weaknesses of each avenue may make a case more suitable to either venue, depending on the circumstances.Thanks

Depends on the wording of the question. More nuanced opinions are generally fine, though.

[HopefulLawStudent]

What do you want help with?

There are four really popular reasons for a court hierarchy, and those are two of them.

Forgot to include my question. Whoops.

I sorta don't get how having a court hierarchy = administrative efficiency. Like I can't quite grasp how these two are linked... Could you please clarify the link between court hierarchy and administrative efficiency?

[tas18]

Forgot to include my question. Whoops.

I sorta don't get how having a court hierarchy = administrative efficiency. Like I can't quite grasp how these two are linked... Could you please clarify the link between court hierarchy and administrative efficiency?

My understanding is that having a court hierarchy is beneficial because of the administrative efficiency/ convenience it allows for. The existence of the hierarchy allows for higher courts to hear the more important, complex and lengthy cases, (which makes sense since they are considered to be more experienced) while lower courts hear minor, shorter and less complicated cases. The expediency and benefit of this is that delays are reduced for those taking minor cases to court, as they aren't required to wait for the more lengthy cases to be dealt with first. So because the majority of crimes that are committed are of minor nature (summary offences/ minor civil offences), they can be dealt with quickly in the Magistrates' court (there are a large number of Magistrates' courts, so even though many cases are heard there are many courts of the kind to hear them), therefore, reducing the stress on the higher courts, ensuring delays are reduced and that the court system doesn't get clogged up with the large number of cases waiting to be heard. Hope that helps..

[Drewballs]

Forgot to include my question. Whoops.

I sorta don't get how having a court hierarchy = administrative efficiency. Like I can't quite grasp how these two are linked... Could you please clarify the link between court hierarchy and administrative efficiency?

Administrative convince is a funny one!
It basically means that because courts that are higher up in the system deal with more difficult cases, they will only have the paper work such as precedents on physical record for those sort of cases. For example, the magistrates court wouldn't have case records for murder, an indictable offence, because it mostly doesn't deal with indictable offences (only minor ones listed in The Criminal Procedure Act 2009). Conversely, the Supreme Court wouldn't have paper work for cases dealing with Summary offences because they don't hear them according to their Jurisdiction
It also means that Courts only have the facilities according to their jurisdiction. So, a Magistrates Court wouldn't have a jury box, because it never has a jury
In addition, it is easy for the public to understand what court their matter will go to due to the ranked hierarchy, as the lowest court deals with the most minor cases and as you go up in the hierarchy the seriousness of the cases

Hope that helps!

[HopefulLawStudent]

Administrative convince is a funny one!
It basically means that because courts that are higher up in the system deal with more difficult cases, they will only have the paper work such as precedents on physical record for those sort of cases. For example, the magistrates court wouldn't have case records for murder, an indictable offence, because it mostly doesn't deal with indictable offences (only minor ones listed in The Criminal Procedure Act 2009). Conversely, the Supreme Court wouldn't have paper work for cases dealing with Summary offences because they don't hear them according to their Jurisdiction
It also means that Courts only have the facilities according to their jurisdiction. So, a Magistrates Court wouldn't have a jury box, because it never has a jury
In addition, it is easy for the public to understand what court their matter will go to due to the ranked hierarchy, as the lowest court deals with the most minor cases and as you go up in the hierarchy the seriousness of the cases

Hope that helps!

My understanding is that having a court hierarchy is beneficial because of the administrative efficiency/ convenience it allows for. The existence of the hierarchy allows for higher courts to hear the more important, complex and lengthy cases, (which makes sense since they are considered to be more experienced) while lower courts hear minor, shorter and less complicated cases. The expediency and benefit of this is that delays are reduced for those taking minor cases to court, as they aren't required to wait for the more lengthy cases to be dealt with first. So because the majority of crimes that are committed are of minor nature (summary offences/ minor civil offences), they can be dealt with quickly in the Magistrates' court (there are a large number of Magistrates' courts, so even though many cases are heard there are many courts of the kind to hear them), therefore, reducing the stress on the higher courts, ensuring delays are reduced and that the court system doesn't get clogged up with the large number of cases waiting to be heard. Hope that helps..

Thanks guys! Thank you for clarifying that for me.

I have another 2 questions.

Distinguish between conciliation and arbitration. Explain which method of dispute settlement is most effective. [No marking scheme given]

How do I structure my answer? I never know how to structure my answer, especially when there are multiple things that we're asked to do in the question...

Also. Off-topic-ish but in Legal Studies, are we allowed to come up with hypothetical examples and use them in the exam? For example, if I got a question asking for the effects of statutory interpretation and I'd said something about how the courts can broaden or narrow the statute, could I give a hypothetical example about how for example in the studded belt case, while the courts adopted a narrow description of a "regulated weapon", classing it only as an item that served no other purpose than causing bodily harm, they could have adopted a broader definition of a "regulated weapon", classing it as anything that could cause injury, irrespective of its original purpose. Like am I allowed to make up an example or expand an example to better apply to what I was talking about?

[Drewballs]

Yes hypothetical examples can be used, but only sometimes...
In that specific question I wouldn't, I would answer like this...

One effect of statutory interpretation is that the meaning of the legislation may be narrowed. This happens when words in legislation are given a more specific meaning, enabling judges to resolve a dispute by seeing whether the facts of their case fall with that meaning or outside that meaning. For example, in Dieng v Tarola (1992) or the Studded Belt case, precedent was set regarding the meaning of the work 'weapon', as there was no definition in the legislation, so the judge defined a weapon as " an object with a primary use as a weapon with no other primary use" to determine if the studded belt fitted this definition. This narrowed the scope of the law
I wouldn't really talk about the meaning being broadened because that doesn't happen very often, and you would need a hypothetical example, i would just make another point like it may prompt parliament to change the law, where examples are plentiful such as after Kevin and Jennifer parliament amended to Marriage Act in 2003 to include post operative transsexuals

For Your other question..
I would start with general statement that clearly states which method you think is more effective
Then one reason why you believe this, as well as a negative point for the lesser point and how the one you believe is better is more effective for this reason
Do this as many times depending on the marks

Hope all this helps

[meganrobyn]

Yes hypothetical examples can be used, but only sometimes...
In that specific question I wouldn't, I would answer like this...

One effect of statutory interpretation is that the meaning of the legislation may be narrowed. This happens when words in legislation are given a more specific meaning, enabling judges to resolve a dispute by seeing whether the facts of their case fall with that meaning or outside that meaning. For example, in Dieng v Tarola (1992) or the Studded Belt case, precedent was set regarding the meaning of the work 'weapon', as there was no definition in the legislation, so the judge defined a weapon as " an object with a primary use as a weapon with no other primary use" to determine if the studded belt fitted this definition. This narrowed the scope of the law
I wouldn't really talk about the meaning being broadened because that doesn't happen very often, and you would need a hypothetical example, i would just make another point like it may prompt parliament to change the law, where examples are plentiful such as after Kevin and Jennifer parliament amended to Marriage Act in 2003 to include post operative transsexuals

For Your other question..
I would start with general statement that clearly states which method you think is more effective
Then one reason why you believe this, as well as a negative point for the lesser point and how the one you believe is better is more effective for this reason
Do this as many times depending on the marks

Hope all this helps

Firstly, I think your detail and clarity are amazing - and with your previous answer, too. I was going to say a couple of different things from you, though (I totally agree with everything else) so I'll just put them out there for comparison

I agree that a real example shows knowledge in a way that a hypothetical doesn't; but, I wouldn't be prejudiced against hypotheticals because of that. Especially if the hypothetical is an extrapolation of a real case, so you're showing knowledge there and additional illustration. Different, of course, if the question asks for a real example.

(Quick side note: was 'Dieng' a typo? And just go for either 'Deing v Tarola' or 'Studded Belt Case' in the exam because it doesn't matter either way and only using one is quicker )

Also, with the Marriage Act, the only statutory amendment was actually to specify that marriage had to be between one man and one woman - the Howard Government tried to include a definition of man and woman based on chromosomes, but they got shouted down and withdrew it. The flexible definition of gender is still in common law.

Totally agree with your advice on the second question. I'd just add to the OP that structuring by reference to the task word or task words is generally best. Once you get confident you can integrate them a little. So, for this one, there are two task words: differentiate, and argue (explain + effective). You can do a section on differences (estimating around 2-4 marks logically), then do a section on comparative strengths and weaknesses (estimating around 3-6 marks logically). Once you get a bit more confident with structure, you can integrate: for instance, begin with a difference, then go straight into eval on that difference; next paragraph, next difference. But integrating task words is harder than doing them one at a time.

[Drewballs]

Firstly, I think your detail and clarity are amazing - and with your previous answer, too. I was going to say a couple of different things from you, though (I totally agree with everything else) so I'll just put them out there for comparison

I agree that a real example shows knowledge in a way that a hypothetical doesn't; but, I wouldn't be prejudiced against hypotheticals because of that. Especially if the hypothetical is an extrapolation of a real case, so you're showing knowledge there and additional illustration. Different, of course, if the question asks for a real example.

(Quick side note: was 'Dieng' a typo? And just go for either 'Deing v Tarola' or 'Studded Belt Case' in the exam because it doesn't matter either way and only using one is quicker )

Also, with the Marriage Act, the only statutory amendment was actually to specify that marriage had to be between one man and one woman - the Howard Government tried to include a definition of man and woman based on chromosomes, but they got shouted down and withdrew it. The flexible definition of gender is still in common law.

Totally agree with your advice on the second question. I'd just add to the OP that structuring by reference to the task word or task words is generally best. Once you get confident you can integrate them a little. So, for this one, there are two task words: differentiate, and argue (explain + effective). You can do a section on differences (estimating around 2-4 marks logically), then do a section on comparative strengths and weaknesses (estimating around 3-6 marks logically). Once you get a bit more confident with structure, you can integrate: for instance, begin with a difference, then go straight into eval on that difference; next paragraph, next difference. But integrating task words is harder than doing them one at a time.

Thank You!

Lucky you pointed out the mistake with the marriage act because i had that in my notes! could have cost me marks in the exam.
Feel free to correct me whenever you want, it will help me as well as everyone learn!

[Drewballs]

Hi Everyone!
I'm preparing for my AOS 1 SAC and I came across this question..
Evaluate the Strength and weakness of the methods used by Courts and VCAT to solve civil disputes (10 Marks)
How would I structure my answer? Would I do one strength and one weakness of each of the 4 dispute resolution methods?
and then pick which one is the most effective?

[meganrobyn]

Hi Everyone!
I'm preparing for my AOS 1 SAC and I came across this question..
Evaluate the Strength and weakness of the methods used by Courts and VCAT to solve civil disputes (10 Marks)
How would I structure my answer? Would I do one strength and one weakness of each of the 4 dispute resolution methods?
and then pick which one is the most effective?

I think a more integrated comparative analysis is more effective. For this one, I would structure by feature. One feature, then eval the four methods together on that feature; next paragraph, next feature. One some features you can group similar methods.

[nm4065]

Hi everyone, I was wondering if I could please have some feedback on this sample paragraph relating to 'evaluate and compare the way in which courts operate to resolve disputes." I'm not quite sure how to structure my responses go questions about VCAT/Courts.Thanks

One strength of the way VCAT operates to resolve disputes is that they provide a timely resolution of disputes, relative to other avenues such as the courts. VCAT has generally lower waiting times, and lacks extensive pre-civil trial procedures, spending less time on the determination of evidence and allowing more time for the parties to be heard. VCAT aims to resolve disputes within a mean of ten weeks, providing a faster alternative to the courts which often take months from application to hearing. Further, the limited right of appeal at VCAT, restricted to points of law only, provides finality and closure to parties sooner. Whereas, parties can appeal court decisions on point of law, question of fact or outcome. Whilst this can add to the time taken to resolve disputes, it does provide a wider opportunity for erroneous decisions to be rectified. The courts often spend extensive amounts of time conducting pre-civil trial procedures, and while this may be time consuming, it does ensure that all evidence is known to both parties and may promote an out of court settlement. VCAT lacks such extensive procedures, and parties 'surprised' by the revelation of some evidence and could be intimidated into compromise. Therefore, VCAT may not be suitable for large and more complex matters where large volumes of evidence must be considered in detail. Further, the speediness of VCATs operation may be undermined by the fact that many VCAT orders, such as monetary orders, must be certified by the relevant court prior to being enforced upon an in-compliant party. This is in comparison to courts where all orders and decisions are fully and immediately enforceable. Therefore, whilst VCAT’s timely resolution of disputes may not be suitable for all, especially larger cases; it does operate to provide a timely resolution of disputes to the majority of cases, giving finality to parties sooner.

[HopefulLawStudent]

Audrey has commenced civil proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria (Trial Division). The court will resolve the dispute at trial after mediation was unsuccessful. Provide one reason for the existence of a court hierarchy. Refer to Audrey’s dispute in your answer.

One reason for the existence of a court hierarchy is that it is essential to the operation of the appeals system. Through the appeals system, parties who are dissatisfied with the outcome of their case may appeal to a higher court to have their case reviewed. For example, if Audrey found himself to be dissatisfied with the outcome of his civil proceedings in the Supreme Court of Victoria (Trial Division), he could appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeals on a point of law, question of fact or damages.

Just wondering: Does my answer make sense? (esp. the underlined bit).

[clarke54321]

Just wondering: Does my answer make sense? (esp. the underlined bit).

Hi HLS,

Yeah that's right, maybe I'd just say 'amount of damages' instead of damages for some extra clarity.

[HopefulLawStudent]

Thank youuu!

Also: What's the diff between a point of law, a question of fact and a question of law?? Strictly speaking, is that a part of the study design/assessable?

[Glasses]

Thank youuu!

Also: What's the diff between a point of law, a question of fact and a question of law?? Strictly speaking, is that a part of the study design/assessable?

I believe a question of fact is regarding a fact of the case (so like, what did/didn't happen), and a question of law and point of law are the same thing - meaning that the court misinterpreted or misapplied the law.

I don't think they are directly examinable (and they're not explicitly stated in the study design), but I do think you need to know them in order to explain the appellate jurisdictions of the courts. E.g. - You are unlikely to get a question asking what an appeal on a point of law is; but you may get a question asking about x person appeal to y court, on the basis of z.

EDIT: Clarification.