VCE Legal Studies Question Thread

[HopefulLawStudent]

No court is obliged to follow the judgements made by courts at the same level of the court hierarchy. As there is no court higher than the High Court, we may conclude that the High Court is not bound to follow any precedent whereas otherwise would be bound to follow precedents established by courts higher up in the hierarchy.

Hope that answered your question!

[clarke54321]

Hey everyone,

How do you reference law made by courts. This is an area of confusion as my teacher says we should only refer to it as principle/statements of law, the text-book begins by saying it's common, judge-made or court-made law and then later on they refer to it as being law.

[HopefulLawStudent]

Common law, case law, precedent.

[meganrobyn]

Hey everyone,

How do you reference law made by courts. This is an area of confusion as my teacher says we should only refer to it as principle/statements of law, the text-book begins by saying it's common, judge-made or court-made law and then later on they refer to it as being law.

Any and all of the above! It's just law - but if the context doesn't make it clear that it's specifically court-made law, then use a court-specific term such as precedent or common law rule/principle. And never use a parliament-specific term such as statute. And, for the SACs, do what your teacher wants.

[upandgo]

hi all  i was doing some revision and i stumbled across the question attached. in the 2015 assessment report it refers to concurrent and residual powers, but how would i incorporate this into my response to gain full marks?

thanks in advance!

[meganrobyn]

hi all  i was doing some revision and i stumbled across the question attached. in the 2015 assessment report it refers to concurrent and residual powers, but how would i incorporate this into my response to gain full marks?

thanks in advance!

I don't understand your question. Are you saying that you know how to answer the question, but don't know how to incorporate the ideas of residual and concurrent powers into that answer?

[upandgo]

I don't understand your question. Are you saying that you know how to answer the question, but don't know how to incorporate the ideas of residual and concurrent powers into that answer?

yeah, sorry if i phrased that ambigously! i understand that the question involves the ideas of residual and concurrent powers, but i'm stuck on how to explain it with sufficient detail to gain full marks  .

[meganrobyn]

yeah, sorry if i phrased that ambigously! i understand that the question involves the ideas of residual and concurrent powers, but i'm stuck on how to explain it with sufficient detail to gain full marks  .

Do you want to give it a go and then people can give feedback?

[clarke54321]

Does anyone have any past Unit 3 AOS 3 SACs or tests?

[upandgo]

Do you want to give it a go and then people can give feedback?

the only thing i could write was that 'residual powers enable the states to enact different pieces of legislation that pertain to one area. examples of such areas include criminal law and public transport'  it sounds very vague and im not explaining WHY the residual power enables them to do so, as stipulated in the assessment report (this is what i'm stuck on - im not sure how to explain why  ). apologies if this is a silly question.. (44% of people got this question correct so i feel like the answer's obvious, but i cant seem to explain it further)

Does anyone have any past Unit 3 AOS 3 SACs or tests?

i can send you my teachers practice SACs if you're interested 

[meganrobyn]

the only thing i could write was that 'residual powers enable the states to enact different pieces of legislation that pertain to one area. examples of such areas include criminal law and public transport'  it sounds very vague and im not explaining WHY the residual power enables them to do so, as stipulated in the assessment report (this is what i'm stuck on - im not sure how to explain why  ). apologies if this is a silly question.. (44% of people got this question correct so i feel like the answer's obvious, but i cant seem to explain it further)

i can send you my teachers practice SACs if you're interested 

See, the problem is that I (or anyone) could absolutely write an answer that explains it in more detail, but that's not really fixing anything long-term because you already know what your problems are: you're not being specific with your explanation, you're not explaining why/how, and you're not mentioning concurrent powers. I know this sounds a bit tough-love, but if you know the content and you know what the current problem is with your work, the only thing left to do for long-term gain is... practise.

So, you know what the problems are. I'd just add to the first (not specific enough in explanatory detail), that you're not being specific enough in the words you choose full stop ("pertain to one area"?), and not being specific enough in how your response relates to the question. Revise. Repost. We've all been there.

[Drewballs]

Hi Guys! I found a question that asked What are 2 ways a court of the same standing can depart from precedent other then distinguishing?( 2 x 2 marks )
I understand that the court can disapprove but what would the other one be? It can overrule or reverse because they are on the same level unless I'm wrong?

[meganrobyn]

Hi Guys! I found a question that asked What are 2 ways a court of the same standing can depart from precedent other then distinguishing?( 2 x 2 marks )
I understand that the court can disapprove but what would the other one be? It can overrule or reverse because they are on the same level unless I'm wrong?

Yeah, I'm stumped by this one. It can't overrule or reverse, as you say - but disapproving isn't a method of departure, so it doesn't count here. Basically, a court of the same standing doesn't have to follow a precedent from the same level full stop, so they don't need to 'depart' per se. They just don't have to follow it (although most will usually give a reason such as disapproving or distinguishing). The wording of that question is either poor, or the person who wrote it suffers a misunderstanding of precedent, I think.

[Drewballs]

I asked my teacher and she said to talk about parliament cancelling precedent through legislation!

[meganrobyn]

Oh. That's not 'departing' from precedent, though. If the precedent has been abrogated or otherwise invalidated, it's not current precedent anymore. That would be an appropriate answer for a question worded more like, "Two reasons a court of the same standing might not have to follow a precedent [or 'a previous precedent']." Was the specific wording of the question more along those lines, perhaps, or did it say 'depart'??