VCE Legal Studies Question Thread

[Jawnle]

Is an evaluation of the doctrine of precedent similar to an evaluation of courts as law makers? If not, which has been common to be examined in past VCAA papers? Thanks

[M_BONG]

Is an evaluation of the doctrine of precedent similar to an evaluation of courts as law makers? If not, which has been common to be examined in past VCAA papers? Thanks

Yeah except if the question asks you to evaluate courts as law-makers you have more room to move around. You don't have to mention doctrine of precedent if you don't want to (although what else are you going to talk about for a 6-10 marker, f you don't?)

I remember having to do this annoying VCAA question somewhere along the lines of "the doctrine of precedent ensures consistency and flexibility". That was a really good question because you have to know the subtle similarities and differences between consistency and flexibility. But I think asking you to evaluate courts is a more common exam question since it's broader in scope, but they are equally examinable.

[Jawnle]

Yeah except if the question asks you to evaluate courts as law-makers you have more room to move around. You don't have to mention doctrine of precedent if you don't want to (although what else are you going to talk about for a 6-10 marker, f you don't?)

I remember having to do this annoying VCAA question somewhere along the lines of "the doctrine of precedent ensures consistency and flexibility". That was a really good question because you have to know the subtle similarities and differences between consistency and flexibility. But I think asking you to evaluate courts is a more common exam question since it's broader in scope, but they are equally examinable.

With these questions can you tell me what it emphasises on?

‘The doctrine of precedent limits the role of the courts as law-makers. However, the courts can still make
significant changes to the law.’
Evaluate the extent to which the doctrine of precedent allows the courts to change the law. 8 marks

Explain the process of law-making by courts. Include in your answer an evaluation of two strengths and two weaknesses of this process. 10 marks

‘Our common law system of law-making ensures that similar cases with similar fact situations receive
similar rulings by judges.’
Critically evaluate the effectiveness of this process of law-making by the courts, and justify your
conclusion. 10 marks

Thanks!

[meganrobyn]

There's so much overlap here - I say don't worry too much, and always just keep in mind some of your core courts-as-lawmakers points.

With these questions can you tell me what it emphasises on?

‘The doctrine of precedent limits the role of the courts as law-makers. However, the courts can still make
significant changes to the law.’
Evaluate the extent to which the doctrine of precedent allows the courts to change the law. 8 marks

Take a really broad view of the doctrine of precedent (it's just, after all, HOW courts make law) and explain how it enables them to make/change law, plus how it limits them. How do each of the rules of binding precedent enable and limit? How about persuasive? How about statutory interpretation? How about the difference between the ratio and obiter?

Explain the process of law-making by courts. Include in your answer an evaluation of two strengths and two weaknesses of this process. 10 marks

This one is slightly more of a good/bad evaluation rather than the can/can't evaluation above. But much of your content will be the same - you'll just link it to good/bad rather than can/can't, and you might be able to chuck some other points in.

‘Our common law system of law-making ensures that similar cases with similar fact situations receive
similar rulings by judges.’
Critically evaluate the effectiveness of this process of law-making by the courts, and justify your
conclusion. 10 marks

Thanks!

This one, I would argue, is the first two put together

[Jawnle]

There's so much overlap here - I say don't worry too much, and always just keep in mind some of your core courts-as-lawmakers points.

Take a really broad view of the doctrine of precedent (it's just, after all, HOW courts make law) and explain how it enables them to make/change law, plus how it limits them. How do each of the rules of binding precedent enable and limit? How about persuasive? How about statutory interpretation? How about the difference between the ratio and obiter?

This one is slightly more of a good/bad evaluation rather than the can/can't evaluation above. But much of your content will be the same - you'll just link it to good/bad rather than can/can't, and you might be able to chuck some other points in.

This one, I would argue, is the first two put together

Hey thanks for the reply, I really like the concept of good/bad evaluation or can/can't evaluation. However I find it difficult to determine which evaluation it requires. What key terms or phrases could I take from questions that give away what kind of evaluation it is? Thanks

[connie990]

'Evaluate the methods by which individuals can resolve civil disputes through the court system. Include in your answer an explanation of the extent to which individuals face problems or difficulties when accessing the courts."

 -10 mark question

How do I break this question down? 5 and 5 marks for the two parts?

How many dispute resolution methods should I use to talk about ? Are any of the four (mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial determination) okay to write about?

Someone help please 

[zeiinaaa]

'Evaluate the methods by which individuals can resolve civil disputes through the court system. Include in your answer an explanation of the extent to which individuals face problems or difficulties when accessing the courts."

 -10 mark question

How do I break this question down? 5 and 5 marks for the two parts?

How many dispute resolution methods should I use to talk about ? Are any of the four (mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial determination) okay to write about?

Someone help please 

Since this is an evaluation question, the structure of your response will help score you points. Also discussing mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial determination and mentioning strengths and weaknesses of them will mainly help you achieve the 10 marks.

As for problems and difficulties faced by individuals, id say at most mention 2-3 things such as cultural issues, financial issues and delays.

I don't think it's a split mark as majority of marks will be given towards part 1 of the question.

But make sure to check with your teacher for reassurance and let them mark your response.

[Jawnle]

With the current study design, one point mentions 'the relationship between courts and parliament in law-making'. Can we be examined on comparing and evaluating which body is a better law maker? I've seen questions like this on the 2002-03 vcaa exams but not on the recent ones. Thanks

[norabadawy]

Hello. I just have a quick questions for when explaining operation of the doctrine of precedent as a reason for a court hierarchy.

The existence of a court hierarchy allows for the operation of the doctrine of precedent, where lower courts must follow the legal reasoning behind the decisions (referred to as the ratio decidendi) made by higher courts in the same hierarchy, in cases where the material facts are similar. For example, the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria and Victorian County Court must follow legal reasoning behind decisions set out by the Victorian Supreme Court, because the latter is a superior court. The doctrine of precedent allows similar cases to be decided in a similar manner and helps ensure courts’ decisions are consistent and predictable. Without the existence of a court hierarchy, the doctrine of precedent could not operate. `

Is this explanation good enough?  I've only mentioned ratio decidendi and haven't explicitly mentioning binding or persuasive precedent so I'm not sure.
Thank you!

[Jawnle]

Hello. I just have a quick questions for when explaining operation of the doctrine of precedent as a reason for a court hierarchy.

The existence of a court hierarchy allows for the operation of the doctrine of precedent, where lower courts must follow the legal reasoning behind the decisions (referred to as the ratio decidendi) made by higher courts in the same hierarchy, in cases where the material facts are similar. For example, the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria and Victorian County Court must follow legal reasoning behind decisions set out by the Victorian Supreme Court, because the latter is a superior court. The doctrine of precedent allows similar cases to be decided in a similar manner and helps ensure courts’ decisions are consistent and predictable. Without the existence of a court hierarchy, the doctrine of precedent could not operate. `

Is this explanation good enough?  I've only mentioned ratio decidendi and haven't explicitly mentioning binding or persuasive precedent so I'm not sure.
Thank you!

Probably replace "Without the existence of a court hierarchy, the doctrine of precedent could not operate. " with
"Without the existence of a court hierarchy, there would be no way to determine which court's decision holds more weight".
or
"Without the existence of a court hierarchy, there would be no higher courts to form binding precedents on lower courts and for this reason, the doctrine of precedent cannot operate".

I think any answer involving the D.O.P should have a brief explanation of stare decisis (to stand by what is decided) and binding precedent because one of the aims of the D.O.P is to ensure consistency as lower courts are bound to follow precedents set by higher courts.

[Bluegirl]

Discus two recent reforms to the jury system as it operates in Victoria.

Is it usual for a question to be asked like this? Or is it normally q question that let's you choose between a recent or suggested reform?

Can someone help me with this please? What could I include?
Thanks

[meganrobyn]

Discus two recent reforms to the jury system as it operates in Victoria.

Is it usual for a question to be asked like this? Or is it normally q question that let's you choose between a recent or suggested reform?

Can someone help me with this please? What could I include?
Thanks

No, that's really standard. Asking for three or four jury reforms would be unexpected, though - that's a lot. Not impossible, but surprising. What's strange about this question, though, is that they've connected recent changes and limited it to the jury specifically. The Study Design only asks for jury reforms and alternatives, which suggests *future* reforms. Recent reforms are part of the final topic, on problems and changes to the legal system as a whole (ie not the jury topic).

'Discuss' is kind of halfway between explain and evaluate. Do a bit of each

[biggs026]

Hey guys, would mediation, conciliation and arbitration be more lengthy then judicial determination? Or more timely?

[meganrobyn]

Hey guys, would mediation, conciliation and arbitration be more lengthy then judicial determination? Or more timely?

They're generally considered to be less time-consuming. The inquisitorial and informal aspects of arbitration help speed it up, while the cooperative focus of the others helps them be faster. And they all tend to have shorter waiting lists than JD through the courts.

[biggs026]

Ahh okay, makes sense. Thank you!