VCE Legal Studies Question Thread

[Olivia Shamoon]

When answering a question in the legal exam, is it good to link our question to the elements of an effective legal system where necessary?

Or do we need to be specifically asked about them to include them in our answers?

[Glasses]

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.

Whoa I'm relieved I read this, seeing those definitions really confused me haha

Out of curiosity, what textbook are they from?

[Igotabooboo]

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.

Thanks for the response! Can you please elaborate a bit on what you mean by manslaughter often being heard in the supreme court as an alternative to murder trials? Are jurors able to remove themselves from jury service in a murder dispute, and there are jurors remaining or something similar?

[reards]

I know how VCAT meets its objectives of being cost-effective, accessible, informal and specialised but how does it not meet these objectives? All textbooks I check didn't really have much evidence on the cons of the objectives but I thought it would be good to add it if I got a longer question about VCAT. So does anyone know how it does not meet these objective and/or specific evidence of this? Thank you

[EdwinJS]

I know how VCAT meets its objectives of being cost-effective, accessible, informal and specialised but how does it not meet these objectives? All textbooks I check didn't really have much evidence on the cons of the objectives but I thought it would be good to add it if I got a longer question about VCAT. So does anyone know how it does not meet these objective and/or specific evidence of this? Thank you

Not sure if I understood the question correctly but,

VCAT was established in 1998 as a body to resolve civil disputes in a more cost-effective, informal and timely manner. VCAT fees begin at $37 whereas the court fees can be quite extensive depending on the duration of the case and the complexity. Strict rules of evidence and procedure are solid within the courts; however, due to the absence of these rules of evidence and procedure VCAT is more informal. Hearings are conducted across the state, at various locations, this is unlike the courts. Having more locations for VCAT hearings increases VCAT's accessibility as they are physically closer to the public. The court process can become very time-consuming, depending on the complexity of the case, some civil cases can go on for years; however, with VCAT most cases are heard within 2 weeks and solved within 1 day. Both the courts and VCAT are bodies that individuals can use to resolve civil disputes, VCAT is more cost-effective, informal and quick.

These specific details are from a summary textbook, did you want more detail because I don't think we'd ever need to go in more detail, do we?

[EDIT] Just understood it was the negatives, whoops! 

[SexGodDosia]

I know how VCAT meets its objectives of being cost-effective, accessible, informal and specialised but how does it not meet these objectives? All textbooks I check didn't really have much evidence on the cons of the objectives but I thought it would be good to add it if I got a longer question about VCAT. So does anyone know how it does not meet these objective and/or specific evidence of this? Thank you

1. While although VCAT is cost effective  and built its premise on not having much lawyer activity, recently there has been increased amount of lawyers being used and hence the cost associated with using VCAT have increased
2. Mediation and Conciliation are not binding and may result in lost time
3. The cases may still end up going to court.

[EdwinJS]

I disagree with saying that the cc will hear manslaughter generally
the Victorian law foundation states "On Occasion manslaughter, are heard in the County Court." This means that its not the majority
of manslaughter cases which are heard in the cc its Some. Where as the SCTD hears ALL indictable offences and specialises in the most serious. If a general question come up that ks where is this case, id state SCTD to be safe and possibly state however in rare instances they can be heard in the CC if defendant pleads Guilty and there is no haze around the case. Also note the SC website states "The Criminal Division of the Supreme Court of Victoria hears trials, pleas and applications in serious criminal matters such as murder, manslaughter, attempted murder, treason as well as fraud, sexual offences and major drug trafficking offences.  "

You have to think though that when a case starts often whether is a murder or manslaughter case is in debate, for example if you kill someone by driving prosecution often want murder and defence want to prove their was no malicious intent. Hence this debate keeps it in the supreme court. It also depends on the status of the crime, if its a clear cut manslaughter done and dusted then it will likely go to the cc but how often is a manslaughter case done and dusted the whole premise of a manslaughter case is built upon someone being killed and establishing whether they had intent or not and thats not easy to prove.

Manslaughter (according to Google) -The crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought, or in circumstances not amounting to murder.

This tells us that whilst manslaughter is the murder of another individual it was found to be not implied and/or intentional. This leads us to believe that it is not a serious assault; that is, not as serious as plain murder.

My textbook states that Manslaughter is heard in the County Court and also Supreme Court Trial Division. Because the Victorian Law foundation  states "on occasion" I think it will depend on the case, so if an individual was in a car crash and if someone was inches away from the accident but unfortunately still got a heart attack and died (long shot, i know) then I assume it would be heard in the county court because the extent of the murder was very low; however, if someone was murdered in a drunk driving case and the deceased was crashed into (actually drove into) then it'd definitely be supreme trial. Mark me if I sound wrong but depending on and if VCAA gives us a case study, examining the specifics of the case make the decision of "which court" a bit easier, does it not?

[SexGodDosia]

Manslaughter (according to Google) -The crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought, or in circumstances not amounting to murder.

This tells us that whilst manslaughter is the murder of another individual it was found to be not implied and/or intentional. This leads us to believe that it is not a serious assault; that is, not as serious as plain murder.

My textbook states that Manslaughter is heard in the County Court and also Supreme Court Trial Division. Because the Victorian Law foundation  states "on occasion" I think it will depend on the case, so if an individual was in a car crash and if someone was inches away from the accident but unfortunately still got a heart attack and died (long shot, i know) then I assume it would be heard in the county court because the extent of the murder was very low; however, if someone was murdered in a drunk driving case and the deceased was crashed into (actually drove into) then it'd definitely be supreme trial. Mark me if I sound wrong but depending on and if VCAA gives us a case study, examining the specifics of the case make the decision of "which court" a bit easier, does it not?

Ye exactly, its case specific, if its guaranteed that its Manslaughter and not murder, it will go too the CC for trial, if its in debate whether its manslaughter or murder then it will go too the SCTD. Like i mentioned above, often the crown wants murder and the defence wants manslaughter and often these cases do end up becoming manslaughter.

[HopefulLawStudent]

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.

Thanks meganrobyn!! I'm so glad you pointed out the narrowness of the definitions because tbh I didn't know that I'd been understanding RODD wrong!! (I'm sooooo glad that I picked up that mistake before the exam...).

Would these definitions work better?

Reversing occurs when a judge or judges are hearing a case on appeal from a lower court and on reviewing the case overturn the previous decision made in that court.

Overruling a previous decision occurs when a superior court decides not to follow a decision previously made in a lower court.

Distinguishing a case is where a court decides not to apply an existing precedent to the case before it because it is satisfied that the material facts of the current case are different from the material facts of the case from which the precedent is derived.

Disapproving occurs when a lower court or a court at the same level follows a precedent it does not like but the judge makes clear that although they are compelled to adhere to the precedent they do not like it.

[EdwinJS]

Any acronyms for Pre-trial civil?

[phurell]

Disapproving occurs when a lower court or a court at the same level follows a precedent it does not like but the judge makes clear that although they are compelled to adhere to the precedent they do not like it

I think instead of the words 'do not like', they 'do not agree' would be better suited. (also some mention of obiter dictum)

so, a more detailed definition:

"Disapproving occurs when a lower court or a court at the same level follows a precedent (either they're bound by it, or following it for the sake of consistency) but the judge makes clear in obiter dictum that although they're compelled to follow the precedent they do not agree with it. If a court on the same level engages in disapproval, a new precedent is established and a higher court will determine which of the two precedent stands."

[Igotabooboo]

Ye exactly, its case specific, if its guaranteed that its Manslaughter and not murder, it will go too the CC for trial, if its in debate whether its manslaughter or murder then it will go too the SCTD. Like i mentioned above, often the crown wants murder and the defence wants manslaughter and often these cases do end up becoming manslaughter.

Thanks! This makes a lot of sense now. I never thought about it in that way

[meganrobyn]

I think instead of the words 'do not like', they 'do not agree' would be better suited. (also some mention of obiter dictum)

so, a more detailed definition:

"Disapproving occurs when a lower court or a court at the same level follows a precedent (either they're bound by it, or following it for the sake of consistency) but the judge makes clear in obiter dictum that although they're compelled to follow the precedent they do not agree with it. If a court on the same level engages in disapproval, a new precedent is established and a higher court will determine which of the two precedent stands."

I think that's an awesome explanation!

When answering a question in the legal exam, is it good to link our question to the elements of an effective legal system where necessary?

Or do we need to be specifically asked about them to include them in our answers?

You only need to do what's asked for in the question. So I'd be looking for references to 'effectiveness'.

1. While although VCAT is cost effective  and built its premise on not having much lawyer activity, recently there has been increased amount of lawyers being used and hence the cost associated with using VCAT have increased
2. Mediation and Conciliation are not binding and may result in lost time
3. The cases may still end up going to court.

Careful with your second and third points. Med and con *are* binding if conducted through VCAT, because the agreements will be made into the binding order; if not, the dispute will go to a hearing as scheduled unless the complainant withdraws their complaint. Also, if it's in VCAT jurisdiction it generally won't be a matter heard in court, so cases don't hop from one to the other.

But the the first point is good, along with the recent fee hikes. Also, hearings can still be quite adversarial, and some lists are operating on decent waiting lists and delays.

Not sure if I understood the question correctly but,

VCAT was established in 1998 as a body to resolve civil disputes in a more cost-effective, informal and timely manner. VCAT fees begin at $37 whereas the court fees can be quite extensive depending on the duration of the case and the complexity. Strict rules of evidence and procedure are solid within the courts; however, due to the absence of these rules of evidence and procedure VCAT is more informal. Hearings are conducted across the state, at various locations, this is unlike the courts. Having more locations for VCAT hearings increases VCAT's accessibility as they are physically closer to the public. The court process can become very time-consuming, depending on the complexity of the case, some civil cases can go on for years; however, with VCAT most cases are heard within 2 weeks and solved within 1 day. Both the courts and VCAT are bodies that individuals can use to resolve civil disputes, VCAT is more cost-effective, informal and quick.

These specific details are from a summary textbook, did you want more detail because I don't think we'd ever need to go in more detail, do we?

[EDIT] Just understood it was the negatives, whoops! 

Haha, the lowest fee is up to $61.50 now, though

Thanks meganrobyn!! I'm so glad you pointed out the narrowness of the definitions because tbh I didn't know that I'd been understanding RODD wrong!! (I'm sooooo glad that I picked up that mistake before the exam...).

Would these definitions work better?

I like those! But EdwinJS has an even better 'disapproving' explanation after your post, imo

Mod edit: Merged posts. (melting meithy)

[HopefulLawStudent]

Thanks meganrobyn!!

Also for the question:

In a recent decision the Vic Supreme Court (TD) established a new precedent. Outline the original jurisdiction of the Vic Supreme Court (TD). - 2011 VCAA, 2 marks

My answer is:

Under the Victorian Supreme Court (Trial Division)’s original criminal jurisdiction, it can hear cases dealing with serious indictable offences, such as murder and murder-related offences. Its original civil jurisdiction is unlimited though it will typically deal with cases dealing with damages of $200,000 and above.

Am I using the terms in the right context? Like is it under its crim original jurisdiction?? ? Also would by answer be enough for 2 marks or do I need more detail??

[meganrobyn]

My answer is:

Under the Victorian Supreme Court (Trial Division)’s original criminal jurisdiction, it can hear cases dealing with serious indictable offences, such as murder and murder-related offences. Its original civil jurisdiction is unlimited though it will typically deal with cases dealing with damages of $200,000 and above.

Am I using the terms in the right context? Like is it under its crim original jurisdiction?? ? Also would by answer be enough for 2 marks or do I need more detail??

I think I use either the preposition 'under' or maybe 'in' - but I think worrying about prepositions is going above and beyond!

More importantly, I feel like you're forgetting it's a strictly criteria content question on the wording. Check the Assessor's Report, but I'm pretty sure the marks would be allocated only to getting the jurisdiction right - no elaboration or detail or discussion or anything. So don't repeat the question at the start of the first sentence: waste of time. Also, I'd personally say "the most serious" indictable offences; and, I would NOT say 'above $200,000' or anything along those lines because amount of damages is not how jurisdiction is decided. It's complexity of the case: either complex facts or law, or a question of precedent. Basically, something the CC can't do, or can't do as well.