VCE Legal Studies Question Thread

[M_BONG]

how do examiners treat extended response answers that say, for instance, the jury system is outdated and should be abolished?

do they frown upon negative opinions towards the legal system, and prefer either positive or neutral opinions?

No. They're looking for your opinion. Negative opinions are just as acceptable as positive ones.
In fact many  assessors would probably think the jury system is outdated themselves. There's nothing wrong with having an opinion - in fact, it would be bad if you didn't have one.

[maturegambino]

thanks for the clarification!

[meganrobyn]

i have a question. When discussing factors influencing composition of juries, do we treat "excused, disqualified and inelgiible as one single factor , or three separate factors? also, are peremptory and challenge for cause considered legitimate factors, as per the VCAA study design?

Separate! They're only worth 1-2 marks each, based on the questions I've seen.

Also, absolutely - they're mentioned explicitly in the annotated SD.

[akeergar]

Do you guys think this will get full marks? Don't think I did  the 'effective' part effectively (ahha see what I did there)  Any feedback would be appreciated!

‘Australia’s approach to the constitutional protection of democratic and human rights is different from, and
not as effective as, the approach adopted in the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Canada’
Compare Australia’s approach to the constitutional protection of democratic and human rights with the approach
adopted in one of the countries listed above. In your answer, evaluate how effective the Commonwealth of
Australia’s Constitution is in protecting democratic and human rights.
*Edit... (8 marks)

Being both democratic nations, Australia and Canada have similar approaches to the constitutional protection if rights, however there does exist some significant difference between the approaches adopted by these countries.

Both Australia and Canada have rights that are entrenched within their relevant constitution. Therefore, as these rights are listed specifically in the respective constitution, they can only be removed or added by those countries prescribed method of constitutional alteration. However, where Canada protects an expansive list of rights under the Canadian Charter (political, democratic, human and even mobility and language rights) Australia differs in that it only protects a limited number of rights. This makes Australia’s approach seemingly ineffective as the rights protected under the constitution are not only limited in number (only 5 express rights under the constitution) but are limited in nature. For example, the right to trial by jury under section 80 only protects the right to trial by jury for Commonwealth indictable offences, when criminal cases are largely heard under state jurisdiction, making the protection futile for state offensives.

Under both Australia and Canada’s approach, the rights protected under the respective constitutions are fully enforceable. This means that any legislation that infringes rights, and is challenged, can be declared invalid by the respective high court of that country – the High Court for Australia and the Supreme Court for Canada. However, in Canada, the parliament has the power to override the Supreme Court’s decision whereas this power does not exist in Australia. Under the ‘notwithstanding clause’, if a legislation is declared invalid in Canada then the parliament can pass the legislation for a second time expressing a clear intent to override a certain right, whereas, the Australian parliament must amend legislation to remove the invalid provision. Australia’s approach is therefore able to effectively ensure that rights are fully enforceable. The High Court can act as a system of checks and balances to ensure that the legislator is not infringing the rights protected by the Constitution.

It can be seen that Australia and Canada have very similar approaches to the protection of rights and where the approaches differ Australia’s approach presents both strengths and weaknesses in comparison to Canada’s approach.

[tcstudent]

Do you guys think this will get full marks? Don't think I did  the 'effective' part effectively (ahha see what I did there)  Any feedback would be appreciated!

‘Australia’s approach to the constitutional protection of democratic and human rights is different from, and
not as effective as, the approach adopted in the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Canada’
Compare Australia’s approach to the constitutional protection of democratic and human rights with the approach
adopted in one of the countries listed above. In your answer, evaluate how effective the Commonwealth of
Australia’s Constitution is in protecting democratic and human rights.
*Edit... (8 marks)

Being both democratic nations, Australia and Canada have similar approaches to the constitutional protection if rights, however there does exist some significant difference between the approaches adopted by these countries.

Both Australia and Canada have rights that are entrenched within their relevant constitution. Therefore, as these rights are listed specifically in the respective constitution, they can only be removed or added by those countries prescribed method of constitutional alteration. However, where Canada protects an expansive list of rights under the Canadian Charter (political, democratic, human and even mobility and language rights) Australia differs in that it only protects a limited number of rights. This makes Australia’s approach seemingly ineffective as the rights protected under the constitution are not only limited in number (only 5 express rights under the constitution) but are limited in nature. For example, the right to trial by jury under section 80 only protects the right to trial by jury for Commonwealth indictable offences, when criminal cases are largely heard under state jurisdiction, making the protection futile for state offensives.

Under both Australia and Canada’s approach, the rights protected under the respective constitutions are fully enforceable. This means that any legislation that infringes rights, and is challenged, can be declared invalid by the respective high court of that country – the High Court for Australia and the Supreme Court for Canada. However, in Canada, the parliament has the power to override the Supreme Court’s decision whereas this power does not exist in Australia. Under the ‘notwithstanding clause’, if a legislation is declared invalid in Canada then the parliament can pass the legislation for a second time expressing a clear intent to override a certain right, whereas, the Australian parliament must amend legislation to remove the invalid provision. Australia’s approach is therefore able to effectively ensure that rights are fully enforceable. The High Court can act as a system of checks and balances to ensure that the legislator is not infringing the rights protected by the Constitution.

It can be seen that Australia and Canada have very similar approaches to the protection of rights and where the approaches differ Australia’s approach presents both strengths and weaknesses in comparison to Canada’s approach.

Harsh feedback is good feedback ay? LOL

1. No implied rights or Structural protection, does australia only protect rights through Express rights?
2. Example of an implied right A.C.T- freedom to communication
3. Structural protection-describe/define-give a case, maybe the Roach case.

this question was in 2012 i think, was 10 marks, and DAYMMMM did u have to write alot, like they allocated 3 pages.

[M_BONG]

Harsh feedback is good feedback ay? LOL

1. No implied rights or Structural protection, does australia only protect rights through Express rights?
2. Example of an implied right A.C.T- freedom to communication
3. Structural protection-describe/define-give a case, maybe the Roach case.

this question was in 2012 i think, was 10 marks, and DAYMMMM did u have to write alot, like they allocated 3 pages.

Aside from what has already been said; notice the task word is "evaluate" not "comment".
You haven't provided strengths + weaknesses and an overall judgement. You have basically said country X is effective because.... country Y is effective at this because... Perhaps you need to look at both sides at a bit better.

Also, your length seems to be a problem, as said above. I would write 3 pages for a 8-10 marker, with clear examples of cases.

[akeergar]

Harsh feedback is good feedback ay? LOL

Definitely, tell me straight what I need to improve and I will. No bullshit.

So thanks tcstudent and thanks M_BONG. It was 8 marks 2007 and I think I was a bit intimidated by the length 8 marks = 3 pages sort of didn't make sense to me, but I can definitely go into more detail. I think I'll re-write keeping your suggestions in mind.

[akeergar]

Harsh feedback is good feedback ay? LOL

1. No implied rights or Structural protection, does australia only protect rights through Express rights?
2. Example of an implied right A.C.T- freedom to communication
3. Structural protection-describe/define-give a case, maybe the Roach case.

I chose express rights as a point of comparison, so does that mean I still have to include the others

[tcstudent]

Yup, look at it this way, you are firstly stating, how rights are protected in Australia, our rights are not only protected by Express rights? we have implied and structural protection too, therefore you include these, and then go on and state how our rights differ to another country such as Canada,

Eg: In Australia when legislation has infringed a party's rights, the legislation only ruled invalid and you cannot acquire compensation in the same case, however you are able to gain compensation by initiating another case intending on getting compensation<< weakness

On the other hand, In Canada, when an individual's rights have been infringed due to legislation, not only is the certain act ruled invalid, but the party/individual is able to gain compensation in the same case, thus saving cost, and time.

hope this is good, im going to bring up a crap excuse and say i havent studied for legal since last monday due to english and further maths. getting into it tonight till the exam.

[strawberrycheesecake]

Hi,  I was just wondering if I could get some feedback on a response.
Greatly appreciated.
VCAA 2007 Question 13 (extended response) (10 marks) (Four pages were allocated) b) A legal writer recently commented:I believe that the jury is one of the most important institutions in ensuring that Australia has an effective legal system. However, not everyone agrees with me. Critically evaluate the extent to which the jury system contributes to an effective legal system, and justify your conclusion.

My response:

As stated above the jury is one of the most important institutions in ensuring that Australia has an effective legal system for a number of reasons. Those reasons include, its cross section of the people, it involves the general community, reflects community values, ensures less legal jargon and helps to protect democracy. However, there are some limitations to the jury system.

A trial by jury represents trial by ones' peers. A jury is made up of average men and women who are not selected as people in a position of authority but are, as far as possible, a cross section of the community. An accused person can therefore feel confident that they are not being oppressed by authority but are being tried by people like themselves within the community. However, it is not possible to have a true cross section of the community because communities comprise of interest groups with different views and values. A jury is also not a true cross section of society because some members of the community are ineligible, disqualified or excuse and because each side has a right to challenge jurors to try to achieve a jury they think that may favour their side. The decision of the jury may not, therefore reflect community values.

A person who serves on a jury is able to participate in the legal system and see the legal system in operation. This can help members of society improve their knowledge of how the legal system works and generally help those participating to gain confidence in the legal system. The task of a juror is exhausting as they are expected to collate, remember, analyse and interpret the facts of the case and to follow the instructions of the judge, as well as being unbiased and unemotional. A juror might experience difficult in understanding the complicated nature of some evidence and the sheer volume of evidence. They are expected to concentrate for long periods of time and comprehend everything. If they are unable to, an unjust outcome can result during deliberations if not all evidence is considered. This can make the process even longer and cause more strain on the parties involved.

The jury is able to reflect community values and take into account the social, moral and economic values of time. A jury can make a decision from the point of view of the ordinary person and does not need to give a reason for its decision. The jury members can carefully follow the points of laaws explained by the judge or ignore the law if they disagree with it. If the jury decides not to make a decision based on the law, it would be difficult to come up with just one reason for the decision among the whole jury, so it could lead to a hung jury. This wil create more stress for the parties as the case must take longer and thus becoming more expensive.

The presence of a jury should ensure that evidence is given ina clear and non-techniqual way, with legal jargon kept to a minimum. The legal personnel have to explain legal concepts to the jury throughout the trial. This enables the parties to the case to have a better understanding of what is going on within the court. This can delay the effectiveness of the legal system because legal personnels must educate average people of the legal procedures. The jury is made up of average people, most of whom would have little knowledge or experience of courtroom proecdures, and they may feel quite confused and overwhelmed by the courtroom formalities. Legal personnels must take time to informt he jury details of the case which acn be time consuming, delaying the resolution and it can eb build onto the parties stress having to wait for a solution.

A jury which is made up of representatives of the people, is another way in which the people are involved in the system and are able to scrutinise the interpretation and aplication of the law. The jury is also able to scrutinise the role of the judge, who are not electeed but have considerable power over the lives of individual members of society. While jurors may be able to scrutinise the judge, the jurors have biases which may influece their decision and judgements. Usually jurors take the task of being on jury very seriously and they are meant to put aisde all biases. When making a decision during deliberation and listening to the evidence it may be difficult for jurors to put aaside their biases and this can result in an unjust outcome.

For these reasons I agree with the comment made by the legal writer, that is, the jury system is an important institution in ensuring Australia's legal system is effective. It incrrase the community involvement in their civic duty, knowledge in the lega lsystem and confidence in the system. Despite some minor issues that can be overcome over time, it ensures that parties are trialed by others like themselves.



WOW that took a while to type up. Sorry for any typos. As I was typing this I noticed I didn't relate to the "effectiveness" part. I will correct it myself.
But please. I am open to ALL feedback.

THANK YOU!

[vashappenin]

Hey guys,
How've we been going with practice exams for legal? Are you guys doing more full exams under timed conditions, taking them casually or just doing practice questions and a few exams here and there as well? Have you done the 2011 and 2012 VCAA exams as well? If not, when are you planning to get them done? If you have already done them, are you going to re-do them before the exam or do other exams instead?
Hope everyone's other exams are going well too

[tcstudent]

Hi,  I was just wondering if I could get some feedback on a response.
Greatly appreciated.
VCAA 2007 Question 13 (extended response) (10 marks) (Four pages were allocated) b) A legal writer recently commented:I believe that the jury is one of the most important institutions in ensuring that Australia has an effective legal system. However, not everyone agrees with me. Critically evaluate the extent to which the jury system contributes to an effective legal system, and justify your conclusion.

My response:

As stated above the jury is one of the most important institutions in ensuring that Australia has an effective legal system for a number of reasons. Those reasons include, its cross section of the people, it involves the general community, reflects community values, ensures less legal jargon and helps to protect democracy. However, there are some limitations to the jury system.

Okay, so im going to put my examiner shoes on LOl, im not sure on your stance here, do you support the statement or not, you've just repeated the above statement.

A trial by jury represents trial by ones' peers. A jury is made up of average men and women who are not selected as people in a position of authority but are, as far as possible, a cross section of the community. An accused person can therefore feel confident that they are not being oppressed by authorityREMOVE THE IMPRESSION OF BEING OPPRESSED BY AUTHORITY FIGURES but are being tried by people like themselves within the community. However, it is not possible to have a true cross section of the community because communities comprise of interest groups with different views and values. A jury is also not a true cross section of society because some members of the community are ineligible, disqualified or excuse and because each side has a right to challenge jurors to try to achieve a jury they think WOULD BE MORE SYMPATHETIC TOWARDS THE ACCUSSED, EXAMPLE NEVER PUT AN OLD LADY IN THE CASE WHERE THE DEFENDANT IS AN OLD LADY AS THEY CAN RELATE. The decision of the jury may not, therefore reflect community values.

A person who serves on a jury is able to participate in the legal system and see the legal system in operation. This can help members of society improve their knowledge , RESPECT and generally help those participating to gain confidence in the legal system. The task of a juror is exhausting as they are expected to collate, remember, analyse and interpret the facts of the case and to follow the instructions of the judge, as well as being unbiased and IMPARTIAL. A juror might experience difficult in understanding the complicated nature of some evidence and the sheer volume of evidence. They are expected to concentrate for long periods of time and comprehend everything. If they are unable to, an unjust outcome can result during deliberations if not all evidence is considered. This can make the process even longer and cause more strain on the parties involved. you could say here that because the general community is a bunch of computer nerds and not lawyers, it can often become difficult to understand legal proceedings and therefore result in an ineffective jury verdict

The jury is able to reflect community values and take into account the social, moral and economic values of time. A jury can make a decision from the point of view of the ordinary person and does not need to give a reason for its decision. The jury members can carefully follow the points of laaws explained by the judge or ignore the law if they disagree with it, im unsure about this, ordinary members of the jury cannot just decide to ignore the law, have you seen Twelve Angry Men, when the jurors decide to not follow the law all hell breaks loose, anyway the role of the jury is to listen to and follow the law as explained to them by the judge. If the jury decides not to make a decision based on the law, it would be difficult to come up with just one reason for the decision among the whole jury, so it could lead to a hung jury. This wil create more stress for the parties as the case must take longer and thus becoming more expensive.towards the end you dont need to say if the jury decide not to follow the law, all you need to say is that if Jury members had to give a reason it will result in more delays and costs, as they will have to now decide upon a reason for the vote of guilty or not guilty.

The presence of a jury should ensure that evidence is given ina clear and non-techniqual way, with legal jargon kept to a minimum. The legal personnel have to explain legal concepts to the jury throughout the trial. This enables the parties to the case to have a better understanding of what is going on within the court. This can delay the effectiveness of the legal system because legal personnels must educate average people of the legal procedures. The jury is made up of average people, most of whom would have little knowledge or experience of courtroom proecdures, and they may feel quite confused and overwhelmed by the courtroom formalities. Legal personnels must take time to informt he jury details of the case which acn be time consuming, delaying the resolution and it can eb build onto the parties stress having to wait for a solution.HAVEN'T YOU ALREADY STATED THIS WEAKNESS EARLIER? COMPLEXITY RIGHT?

A jury which is made up of representatives of the people, is another way in which the people are involved in the system and are able to scrutinise the interpretation and aplication of the law. The jury is also able to scrutinise the role of the judge, who are not electeed but have considerable power over the lives of individual members of society. While jurors may be able to scrutinise the judge, the jurors have biases which may influece their decision and judgements. Usually jurors take the task of being on jury very seriously and they are meant to put aisde all biases. When making a decision during deliberation and listening to the evidence it may be difficult for jurors to put aaside their biases and this can result in an unjust outcome.

For these reasons I agree with the comment made by the legal writer, that is, the jury system is an important institution in ensuring Australia's legal system is effective. It incrrase the community involvement in their civic duty, knowledge in the lega lsystem and confidence in the system. Despite some minor issues that can be overcome over time, it ensures that parties are trialed by others like themselves.



WOW that took a while to type up. Sorry for any typos. As I was typing this I noticed I didn't relate to the "effectiveness" part. I will correct it myself.
But please. I am open to ALL feedback.

THANK YOU!

sorry for the caps, i just wanted to ensure you can see my feedback, also i may have become stupid this past week due to not studying for legal, but some strengths/weaknesses are not clear in my opinion. and you talk about the general community heaps of times, you could have talked about the media too and how the influence due to how they broadcast  the information.

[meganrobyn]

Yup, look at it this way, you are firstly stating, how rights are protected in Australia, our rights are not only protected by Express rights? we have implied and structural protection too, therefore you include these, and then go on and state how our rights differ to another country such as Canada,

Eg: In Australia when legislation has infringed a party's rights, the legislation only ruled invalid and you cannot acquire compensation in the same case, however you are able to gain compensation by initiating another case intending on getting compensation<< weakness

On the other hand, In Canada, when an individual's rights have been infringed due to legislation, not only is the certain act ruled invalid, but the party/individual is able to gain compensation in the same case, thus saving cost, and time.

hope this is good, im going to bring up a crap excuse and say i havent studied for legal since last monday due to english and further maths. getting into it tonight till the exam.

You would absolutely get marks for what you've said, as well - but since it doesn't ask for an overview of how Australia's Constitution protects rights first, before the comparison, you don't need to cover all aspects of our protection. In other words, saying we have one feature doesn't imply that we don't also have others. Requiring every student to cover every aspect would just be unwieldy! A comparison just means you need at least one similarity and at least one difference - but they can be anything, really.

[meganrobyn]

Do you guys think this will get full marks? Don't think I did  the 'effective' part effectively (ahha see what I did there)  Any feedback would be appreciated!

‘Australia’s approach to the constitutional protection of democratic and human rights is different from, and
not as effective as, the approach adopted in the United Kingdom, the United States of America, Canada’
Compare Australia’s approach to the constitutional protection of democratic and human rights with the approach
adopted in one of the countries listed above. In your answer, evaluate how effective the Commonwealth of
Australia’s Constitution is in protecting democratic and human rights.
*Edit... (8 marks)

Being both democratic nations, Australia and Canada have similar approaches to the constitutional protection if rights, however there does exist some significant difference between the approaches adopted by these countries.

Both Australia and Canada have rights that are entrenched within their relevant constitution. Therefore, as these rights are listed specifically in the respective constitution, they can only be removed or added by those countries prescribed method of constitutional alteration. However, where Canada protects an expansive list of rights under the Canadian Charter (political, democratic, human and even mobility and language rights) Australia differs in that it only protects a limited number of rights. This makes Australia’s approach seemingly ineffective as the rights protected under the constitution are not only limited in number (only 5 express rights under the constitution) but are limited in nature. For example, the right to trial by jury under section 80 only protects the right to trial by jury for Commonwealth indictable offences, when criminal cases are largely heard under state jurisdiction, making the protection futile for state offensives.

Under both Australia and Canada’s approach, the rights protected under the respective constitutions are fully enforceable. This means that any legislation that infringes rights, and is challenged, can be declared invalid by the respective high court of that country – the High Court for Australia and the Supreme Court for Canada. However, in Canada, the parliament has the power to override the Supreme Court’s decision whereas this power does not exist in Australia. Under the ‘notwithstanding clause’, if a legislation is declared invalid in Canada then the parliament can pass the legislation for a second time expressing a clear intent to override a certain right, whereas, the Australian parliament must amend legislation to remove the invalid provision. Australia’s approach is therefore able to effectively ensure that rights are fully enforceable. The High Court can act as a system of checks and balances to ensure that the legislator is not infringing the rights protected by the Constitution.

It can be seen that Australia and Canada have very similar approaches to the protection of rights and where the approaches differ Australia’s approach presents both strengths and weaknesses in comparison to Canada’s approach.

I think this is fantastic. Okay, not perfect - but really well-written and with great content.

Suggestions:

- I think your evaluation could be a little stronger. You make comments regarding effectiveness, but your opinion is a bit wishy-washy and repeating the question (at the start and end). If you could come up with an *actual* opinion on how effective you think Australia's protection is and why - one that related to the sims and diffs you did - that would make it come together much better.

- Going slightly harder on the eval in the body of the answer would be good, too... but you don't need to go crazy

- In terms of length, it's *really* hard for me to judge without seeing it handwritten! But you have two similarities and two differences, plus some evaluation - so it's looking pretty good If you think about the actual exam, they give one whole page for any 8-markers, plus a chunk of lines on the second page; they then leave the rest of the second page blank so people can go over if they like. In terms of time, you can spend around 15 mins on an 8-marker. Try writing it out to time and see how that measures up! I think you *might* have time for a slightly stronger eval and mayyybe one more quick point. But maybe not!

Good job, I think!

[Flor]

I was having a talk with a few others today and I'm confused about arbitration in the Mag. Court now. Could someone just clarify whether arbitration IS compulsory if the claims are under $10,000 dollars in the Mag. Court. I was under the impression that it was at the magistrates' discretion to refer parties to compulsory arbitration, and that it's just a general practice done in order to save time and resources.