VCE Legal Studies Question Thread

[dida]

Hey guys, just got a quick question…

Does anyone know what happens at a direction hearing for a CRIMINAL case?

I'm not sure if we have to know it or not for the exam (yes i know we need to know it for civil proceedings) but our teacher is telling us its good to know…

thanks in advance

[AmericanBeauty]

Hi

I'm doing my first legal practice exam and for the first time I appear to be coming up short, albeit very short in terms of lines and writing. I'm doing the 2013 VCAA practice exam and with every question thus far up to question four (especially 3b. and 4) I have not filled up all the lines. The ones that I mentioned I wrote about half, if that, in response to the questions.

Is this fine? If I'm asked to identity two things (simply stating what they want in a few words) and give an example, I don't see why I need like ten lines when I could knock it over in three.

[meganrobyn]

Hi

I'm doing my first legal practice exam and for the first time I appear to be coming up short, albeit very short in terms of lines and writing. I'm doing the 2013 VCAA practice exam and with every question thus far up to question four (especially 3b. and 4) I have not filled up all the lines. The ones that I mentioned I wrote about half, if that, in response to the questions.

Is this fine? If I'm asked to identity two things (simply stating what they want in a few words) and give an example, I don't see why I need like ten lines when I could knock it over in three.

Depends on the task word, how succinct you are, the size of your writing. 'Outline' requires very little writing ('identify', even less), so you're going to fill up less space (per mark) than with something like 'Critically examine'. On the 2013 exam I was way shorter than the lines for both parts of Q1, for instance - but I did fill them for Q3 on the Senate. I have very small writing, but I write quickly.

[AmericanBeauty]

Thank you Megan.

Now, does anyone know what exam mark would be required for around a 37? I have left this way too late and am really struggling as I don't really have notes and my only way of studying is Tim Macdonald on YouTube lol.

[AbominableMowman]

Thank you Megan.

Now, does anyone know what exam mark would be required for around a 37? I have left this way too late and am really struggling as I don't really have notes and my only way of studying is Tim Macdonald on YouTube lol.

Probably in the 50s I'd say maybe low 50s (out of 70) for a 37

[anonymous 774]

could anyone please tell me what a rank 2 would need in the exam for a 40?
thanks

[AbominableMowman]

could anyone please tell me what a rank 2 would need in the exam for a 40?
thanks

An A+ which is usually 60/70, it might just get you a 39 though so its safer if you get around 61-62

[breds151]

Hey guys, what recent/suggested changes are you guys using?
Wasn't really made clear in my classes 

[Shanae1997]

When addressing the impact of the referral of powers, do the powers become concurrent or exclusive? or is it best to simply say that the commonwealth's powers are increased and as a result the state's powers are reduced?

I have read that there is some uncertainty surrounding this area of the law but was wondering if vcaa had provided more clarity on the issue. 
Thanks

[AmericanBeauty]

When addressing the impact of the referral of powers, do the powers become concurrent or exclusive? or is it best to simply say that the commonwealth's powers are increased and as a result the state's powers are reduced?

I have read that there is some uncertainty surrounding this area of the law but was wondering if vcaa had provided more clarity on the issue. 
Thanks

States refer powers to the Cth for a uniform law. This means that they lose their power and are giving it to the Cth. Therefore it is exclusive power, generally. For example, I believe that States were able to make laws with regards to terrorism, but since 9/11 they referred their powers to CTH and now only Cth can make laws in that area at the expense of the states power.

[Mikaylahutchins]

Just curious as to how we go about abbreviating words in the exam?
Thanks

[leftback]

rank 7 A average
what exam score would i need to get to get a 40 study score?

[Shanae1997]

States refer powers to the Cth for a uniform law. This means that they lose their power and are giving it to the Cth. Therefore it is exclusive power, generally. For example, I believe that States were able to make laws with regards to terrorism, but since 9/11 they referred their powers to CTH and now only Cth can make laws in that area at the expense of the states power.

Doesn't the Graham v Preston case demonstrate that it is concurrent though?

'The High Court considered the question of the concurrent operation of Commonwealth and State laws in Graham v Preston. In that case, the defendant, a bakery owner – sold a loaf of bread for 8 pence, above the regulated maximum of 7 pence as per Queensland’s Profiteering Prevention Act 1948. The defendant argued that the Queensland act was ultra vires because the Queensland Parliament had forfeited its ability to make laws on profiteering and prices when it referred such matters to the Commonwealth under Queensland’s Commonwealth Parliament Act 1943. The High Court rejected this argument, endorsing the view that a reference only bestows an additional power on the Commonwealth that is not designed to subsequently diminish or deprive a State of its power with respect to the matter. The result is that the State retains, while the Commonwealth receives, concurrent power to legislate with respect to the same subject matter.'

A lot of mixed messages....

[AmericanBeauty]

When a judge overrules a precedent, does it abrogate it?

[Jawnle]

When a judge disapproves a precedent, does it abrogate it?

Going by memory, I think when a judge disapproves it they just show their lack of support for it (usually done in their obiter dictum - comments made). They will choose not to follow the precedent if it is a persuasive precedent, however both precedents remain in force. On the other hand, if precedent is binding on a court, they can still disapprove it, but they are still required to follow it. They disapprove a binding precedent so people can appeal their case to a higher court, providing an opportunity for a higher court to overrule the 'bad precedent' that the previous judge had disapproved of.

Sorry my explanation isn't fluent but overall no it doesn't abrogate it! It only influences the person to appeal their case to a higher court where the disapproved precedent has a chance of being overruled by the higher court. Hope that helps!