VCE Legal Studies Question Thread

[SexGodDosia]

thanks for the response megan! you're not sounding harsh. i'm doing quite well with completing and understanding other exam/sac questions. These specific ones are the ones i just don't seem to get, and i'm guessing it's my lack of content knowledge in that specific area (or maybe i've missed it in my revision?) which is why i'm asking for someone elses answer. I also can't seem to find it within the textbook causing me to panic a-bit.. so i posted here because i believe it'll help me (mainly for the first question, the other one i have an idea of what to write after going through my notes)

I may be wrong but isn't first one about distinguishing/ disapproving/ reversing/ overruling  (RODD)

[phurell]

I may be wrong but isn't first one about distinguishing/ disapproving/ reversing/ overruling  (RODD)

thank you! yeah i believe it's distinguishing/disapproving/overruling but not reversing

think i need to revise this area a bit more, but now the question makes sense.

[SexGodDosia]

thank you! yeah i believe it's distinguishing/disapproving/overruling but not reversing

think i need to revise this area a bit more, but now the question makes sense.

All good Gl with exam prep

[HopefulLawStudent]

Are we allowed to give extra information in brackets (like so) or is that something I should seek to avoid??

[SexGodDosia]

thank you! yeah i believe it's distinguishing/disapproving/overruling but not reversing

think i need to revise this area a bit more, but now the question makes sense.

For your 2nd question, its just a disguised strengths +weakness of court law making

Inflexibility = unjust decisions (rape in marriage case)
Courts are reactive must wait for cases
Court hierarchy means binding precedent and lower courts must follow

[SexGodDosia]

Are we allowed to give extra information in brackets (like so) or is that something I should seek to avoid??

If it adds substance to your response  then yes, assessors for example want for a high court case, the section of the consitiuton, the name in that section that allows them to govern (external affairs) and the act that was implemented and is being disputed and then the end result with the effect on the DOP

so for example if saying it is apart of section 51 doesn't fit well with the flow but you could add it in brackets then sure or saying something like their are 39 Heads of power which the government can govern within will contextualise your response better or prove further knowledge then again do it

Don't include it if your going on a tangent that adds nothing to the response (1-4 markers), due to 7-10 markers being globally marked having the brackets and proving further knowledge becomes more important if it doesn't fit within your response

[meganrobyn]

thanks for the response megan! you're not sounding harsh. i'm doing quite well with completing and understanding other exam/sac questions. These specific ones are the ones i just don't seem to get, and i'm guessing it's my lack of content knowledge in that specific area (or maybe i've missed it in my revision?) which is why i'm asking for someone elses answer. I also can't seem to find it within the textbook causing me to panic a-bit.. so i posted here because i believe it'll help me (mainly for the first question, the other one i have an idea of what to write after going through my notes)

Okay, good Yep, and it's that panic that will do it to you every time. The key is telling yourself that you have the problem-solving skills you need to work it out - that can help put that emotional wall back in its place: you know what the task word means, you know if the question asks you for a certain number of something, and you can work out which AOS and topic it's focusing on by looking at the keywords. Having content you don't understand can derail that process a bit, but that's what's good to identify now while there's still time

So, yes, I think we've all worked out that precedent and courts making law is a good area to brush up on next!

[Olivia Shamoon]

What can you do to get a solid 40+ in Legal?

I'm so nervous for my exam, as I'm doing legal as a year 11 subject and i really want to do well.

All my marks this year have been above 90, but I'm so nervous for the exam. How hard can i expect it to be?

Thanks

[Igotabooboo]

If it comes up, is manslaughter heard in the county or supreme court? The County Court site says that in practice, some manslaughter cases are heard there. But what if there is a "what court would this be first trialed in?"

Thanks

[HasibA]

What can you do to get a solid 40+ in Legal?

I'm so nervous for my exam, as I'm doing legal as a year 11 subject and i really want to do well.

All my marks this year have been above 90, but I'm so nervous for the exam. How hard can i expect it to be?

Thanks

it will be ridiculously similar to practice exams and sac. chill out, go into a mode of zen with little to no stress, and frankly, stop caring so much: i firmly believe this allows you to avoid the simple mistakes students make in an exam scenario, giving you the score you desire/deserve gl

[SexGodDosia]

If it comes up, is manslaughter heard in the county or supreme court? The County Court site says that in practice, some manslaughter cases are heard there. But what if there is a "what court would this be first trialed in?"

Thanks

SC TD

[EdwinJS]

Missed Any?

[meganrobyn]

If it comes up, is manslaughter heard in the county or supreme court? The County Court site says that in practice, some manslaughter cases are heard there. But what if there is a "what court would this be first trialed in?"

Thanks

I'd probably go with the County Court. Often it's the Supreme Court, but I believe that's usually because manslaughter is often there an alternative offered to juries hearing murder trials. The County can't hear murder, so if murder is on the ticket it has to go to the Supreme. If it's a straight manslaughter, though, that would be within the CC jurisdiction.

[HopefulLawStudent]

Is there like an official definition of overruling/reversing/disapproving/distinguishing? Will we ever be like asked to explain these terms? My textbook's definitions are a cyclical and don't really feel like the sorts of things examiners would accept.

Textbook definitions:

- Reversing is where a judge or judges hearing a case on appeal fr a lower court in the hierarchy can reverse the decision made in that court.

- The High Court is not bound by its own decisions and so can overrule one of its previous decisions if it believes that decision was not sound in law -- Overruling.

- Disapproving is where a judge disapproves an earlier decision made in the same court.

- Distinguishing is where judges distinguish the case before them from previous cases.

[meganrobyn]

Is there like an official definition of overruling/reversing/disapproving/distinguishing? Will we ever be like asked to explain these terms? My textbook's definitions are a cyclical and don't really feel like the sorts of things examiners would accept.

Textbook definitions:

- Reversing is where a judge or judges hearing a case on appeal fr a lower court in the hierarchy can reverse the decision made in that court.

- The High Court is not bound by its own decisions and so can overrule one of its previous decisions if it believes that decision was not sound in law -- Overruling.

- Disapproving is where a judge disapproves an earlier decision made in the same court.

- Distinguishing is where judges distinguish the case before them from previous cases.

I'm really surprised those are textbook definitions! You're right that you can't explain a word using the same word. Also, there's a huge amount of detail missing, and some are incorrect because they're defined too narrowly - eg, courts at other levels can also disapprove; it's not limited to the same level courts.

Yes, you can absolutely be asked to define or explain one or more. Or you could have a question where it makes sense to bring one or more into your overall answer. Regardless of whether they're the subject of a 'define' question, though, they're an important part of the bigger picture of precedent so I'd revise them now.