HSC Legal Studies Question Thread

[rachelmassar]

Hey guys!

I was wondering for a broad consumers question such as 'Assess the role of consumer law in meeting the needs of consumers and society; what would be the strongest things to include if I was to discuss 4 areas? I'm not sure if it'd be best to delve into contemporary issues, but I have 2 strong arguments on mandatory standards (ie product certification) for the role of the ACCC, as well as enforcement in international jurisdictions.

Also, in terms of structuring arguments, would you advise to evaluate organisations in an argument? Ie. the role of the ACC relative to product certification, or the role of the ACC relative to marketing advertising as another argument.

Otherwise, things such as roles of tribunals, contracts + negligence, marketing and advertising etc. could fit but there's too much to have much depth for all of these things. I'm sure there are countless ways to do it but what do you reckon is best to prioritise for broad consumer questions? Struggling to sacrifice depth for a base level understanding of various areas.

Anyways, let me know the main points you'd address for a question like this!
Thanks
Rachel

[caitlinlddouglas]

hey!
 do people charged with attempt or conspiracy face the same penalties as those who have actually committed the crimes?
Also do we need to be across examples of social crime prevention strategies, do you think they could ask a crime question on this?
Thanks

[MisterNeo]

hey!
 do people charged with attempt or conspiracy face the same penalties as those who have actually committed the crimes?
Also do we need to be across examples of social crime prevention strategies, do you think they could ask a crime question on this?
Thanks

People charged with attempt get the same penalty as if the crime actually occured, except for attempted murder which gets a different penalty to murder. It would be ideal to know a few social crime prevention strategies and their effectiveness because they can ask a crime question on "How does the law deal with compliance and non-compliance.", which social/situational crime prevention would be an good topic to discuss.

[Anfar3]

Hey Jamon,

What do u reckon can be asked in the family topic this yr because last yr was pretty nice so i have a feeling this yr can be a little bit more of a curveball.

So in prep for the exam, what area/areas do u reckon I should focus on/ not neglect as it may be asked?

Thanks

[Bubbly_bluey]

Hi
The 2011 legal family question was: To what extent have changing values in the community improved the legal rights of parents and child.
I talked about CROC and Family legislation about best interests of child and the shared parental responsibilities that is about parental duty rather than a right to have a child. Mainly talked about the child's rights to education, parental responsibility about discipline (right for child to not be abused) and how discipline has changed and medical treatment.
I've mostly talked about children's right but not parental rights but rather their responsibility.is that right? and is there anything that I should add?

[toasted]

Hey Jamon,

What do u reckon can be asked in the family topic this yr because last yr was pretty nice so i have a feeling this yr can be a little bit more of a curveball.

So in prep for the exam, what area/areas do u reckon I should focus on/ not neglect as it may be asked?

Thanks

A lot of people have been predicting a compliance and non-compliance essay for at least one of the options so make sure you know that well enough bc making that up on the spot would be pretty hard. Also, same sex relationships is very contemporary- as there's a lot going in the news (with the plebiscite)- so there's a fair chance that pops up. But in saying that, this is all just speculation (triggered(paper 1 reference)) , so anything could really be asked.

[toasted]

Hey!

If a question explicitly asks "assess the effectiveness of legal measures/the law..." are you still able to mention non-legal measures or is it better to stay clear from them?
I was looking at some markers notes from 2011 where the question was "Explain the role of the legal measures in balancing the rights and responsibilities of employees and employers" and it said how in "better responses, candidates included an outline of non-legal measures".

Thanks!

[paigek3]

Hi
The 2011 legal family question was: To what extent have changing values in the community improved the legal rights of parents and child.
I talked about CROC and Family legislation about best interests of child and the shared parental responsibilities that is about parental duty rather than a right to have a child. Mainly talked about the child's rights to education, parental responsibility about discipline (right for child to not be abused) and how discipline has changed and medical treatment.
I've mostly talked about children's right but not parental rights but rather their responsibility.is that right? and is there anything that I should add?

Nope, you are right! Ensure you do add the bit about it changing from rights to responsibility through law reform



I need help peoples, what could be body paragraphs for this question
"Assess the implications of the nature of conflict on achieving world order"

[caitlinlddouglas]

hey what arguments/structure could I have for this question?
'Evaluate the effectiveness of the jury system in the criminal trial process."
Thanks!

[georgiia]

hey what arguments/structure could I have for this question?
'Evaluate the effectiveness of the jury system in the criminal trial process."
Thanks!

I'd start by explaining the purpose of a trial by jury; that it is trial by peers ect. and you could talk abut the reform for mandatory verdicts:
Original law - Jury Act 1977 (NSW)
Reformed statute - Jury (amendment) Act 2006 (NSW)

The effectiveness of majority verdicts:
- Accounts for rogue or unreasonable jurors unrepresentative of community 
- Resource Efficient
- Avoids the stress on victim going through a retrial
Ineffectiveness:
- Discounting possibility of reasonable doubt

Warren Young argues in a Preliminary Research Paper 'Juries in Criminal Trials'
that majority verdicts "Will lead to more majority verdicts than there are currently hung juries which would have the potential to undermine the perceived finality of the jury’s verdict and jeopardise public confidence in the system."

Another argument to pursue could be resource efficiency v.s the effectiveness of juries in achieving just outcomes. In most cases, where they do not secure just outcomes they're also wasting public resources/time/money.
R v Rogerson and R v McNamara (2016) (resource inefficiency)
- Jurors dismissed after two days due to potential prejudice ABC 2016
- Demonstrates lack of time and resource inefficiency
- $71 million per year to fund juries (Australian Bureau of Statistics)

Robert Xie (resource inefficiency and took too long to secure just outcomes)
- Verdict of the Lin family murders took 3 years and four separate trials to secure
- Why did Robert Xie face four trials for Lin family murders? SMH 2017

Trial by jury not achieving just outcomes for society:
R v Skaf
- raised the issue of juror misconduct
- Retrial due to jurors going to scene of crime to do their own investigation

Drug Trial Abandoned after jurors play Sudoku (ABC 2008)
- raised issue of jurors cannot be force to listen
- Discharge jury in major drug trial because jurors were playing Sudoku for “more than half” the trial
- Cost over $1 million and had seen 105 witnesses

Also, BOCSAR (2008) found that only 55% of jurors understood what ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ meant. This undermines the entire purpose of being tried by peers.

Another argument against the effectiveness of trial by jury is that judge alone trials seem to achieve just outcomes while being cost effective and time efficient. They also mitigate juror bias in high-publicity trials. A good case for this argument is R v Gittany (2014) which successfully mitigated juror bias and the judge was able to deliver guilty verdict whilst providing reasons for his decision. This effectively represented societal values.
The Conversation 2014 "In a society where trial by one’s peers in the form of a jury trial is a constitutional right, the Gittany case raises a question whether or not trial by jury should be the exception rather than the rule."

Hope this helps

[~BK~]

so legal is my nxt and final hsc...
i was just wondering if anyone did consumers and/or workplace law as their electives??
yep, they're the driest topics that could be chosen
coz i struggled a little with them, particularly workplace

[jamonwindeyer]

I need help peoples, what could be body paragraphs for this question
"Assess the implications of the nature of conflict on achieving world order"

I'd personally do three case studies for this response, three conflicts, one per paragraph - And assess each scenario in terms of the question one by one

[myyerr]

Hey everyone!
Just wondering, how is everyone preparing for the HSC legal studies exam?
What's the next step after knowing all your content and whats the most efficient process to prepare?
I feel like writing different essays is too time consuming?! What are your thoughts?
Are essay plans enough for preparation?
Sorry, Im just really stressed because the style of studying for legal is completely different from my other subjects and its quite tricky!

Thankyou in advance  

[fergo]

Hi!

In reference to crime and the criminal investigation process, how long can a suspect be detained before they either have to be charged or released? My textbook says 4 hours or 8 if a warrant is applied for, but my teacher said that that might have changed in the last year to 6 hours. Does anyone know?

Thanks!

[caitlinlddouglas]

I'd start by explaining the purpose of a trial by jury; that it is trial by peers ect. and you could talk abut the reform for mandatory verdicts:
Original law - Jury Act 1977 (NSW)
Reformed statute - Jury (amendment) Act 2006 (NSW)

The effectiveness of majority verdicts:
- Accounts for rogue or unreasonable jurors unrepresentative of community 
- Resource Efficient
- Avoids the stress on victim going through a retrial
Ineffectiveness:
- Discounting possibility of reasonable doubt

Warren Young argues in a Preliminary Research Paper 'Juries in Criminal Trials'
that majority verdicts "Will lead to more majority verdicts than there are currently hung juries which would have the potential to undermine the perceived finality of the jury’s verdict and jeopardise public confidence in the system."

Another argument to pursue could be resource efficiency v.s the effectiveness of juries in achieving just outcomes. In most cases, where they do not secure just outcomes they're also wasting public resources/time/money.
R v Rogerson and R v McNamara (2016) (resource inefficiency)
- Jurors dismissed after two days due to potential prejudice ABC 2016
- Demonstrates lack of time and resource inefficiency
- $71 million per year to fund juries (Australian Bureau of Statistics)

Robert Xie (resource inefficiency and took too long to secure just outcomes)
- Verdict of the Lin family murders took 3 years and four separate trials to secure
- Why did Robert Xie face four trials for Lin family murders? SMH 2017

Trial by jury not achieving just outcomes for society:
R v Skaf
- raised the issue of juror misconduct
- Retrial due to jurors going to scene of crime to do their own investigation

Drug Trial Abandoned after jurors play Sudoku (ABC 2008)
- raised issue of jurors cannot be force to listen
- Discharge jury in major drug trial because jurors were playing Sudoku for “more than half” the trial
- Cost over $1 million and had seen 105 witnesses

Also, BOCSAR (2008) found that only 55% of jurors understood what ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ meant. This undermines the entire purpose of being tried by peers.

Another argument against the effectiveness of trial by jury is that judge alone trials seem to achieve just outcomes while being cost effective and time efficient. They also mitigate juror bias in high-publicity trials. A good case for this argument is R v Gittany (2014) which successfully mitigated juror bias and the judge was able to deliver guilty verdict whilst providing reasons for his decision. This effectively represented societal values.
The Conversation 2014 "In a society where trial by one’s peers in the form of a jury trial is a constitutional right, the Gittany case raises a question whether or not trial by jury should be the exception rather than the rule."

Hope this helps

I'd start by explaining the purpose of a trial by jury; that it is trial by peers ect. and you could talk abut the reform for mandatory verdicts:
Original law - Jury Act 1977 (NSW)
Reformed statute - Jury (amendment) Act 2006 (NSW)

The effectiveness of majority verdicts:
- Accounts for rogue or unreasonable jurors unrepresentative of community 
- Resource Efficient
- Avoids the stress on victim going through a retrial
Ineffectiveness:
- Discounting possibility of reasonable doubt

Warren Young argues in a Preliminary Research Paper 'Juries in Criminal Trials'
that majority verdicts "Will lead to more majority verdicts than there are currently hung juries which would have the potential to undermine the perceived finality of the jury’s verdict and jeopardise public confidence in the system."

Another argument to pursue could be resource efficiency v.s the effectiveness of juries in achieving just outcomes. In most cases, where they do not secure just outcomes they're also wasting public resources/time/money.
R v Rogerson and R v McNamara (2016) (resource inefficiency)
- Jurors dismissed after two days due to potential prejudice ABC 2016
- Demonstrates lack of time and resource inefficiency
- $71 million per year to fund juries (Australian Bureau of Statistics)

Robert Xie (resource inefficiency and took too long to secure just outcomes)
- Verdict of the Lin family murders took 3 years and four separate trials to secure
- Why did Robert Xie face four trials for Lin family murders? SMH 2017

Trial by jury not achieving just outcomes for society:
R v Skaf
- raised the issue of juror misconduct
- Retrial due to jurors going to scene of crime to do their own investigation

Drug Trial Abandoned after jurors play Sudoku (ABC 2008)
- raised issue of jurors cannot be force to listen
- Discharge jury in major drug trial because jurors were playing Sudoku for “more than half” the trial
- Cost over $1 million and had seen 105 witnesses

Also, BOCSAR (2008) found that only 55% of jurors understood what ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ meant. This undermines the entire purpose of being tried by peers.

Another argument against the effectiveness of trial by jury is that judge alone trials seem to achieve just outcomes while being cost effective and time efficient. They also mitigate juror bias in high-publicity trials. A good case for this argument is R v Gittany (2014) which successfully mitigated juror bias and the judge was able to deliver guilty verdict whilst providing reasons for his decision. This effectively represented societal values.
The Conversation 2014 "In a society where trial by one’s peers in the form of a jury trial is a constitutional right, the Gittany case raises a question whether or not trial by jury should be the exception rather than the rule."

Hope this helps

thanks so much!! that's seriously so great