VCE Legal Studies Question Thread

[Beamer]

If I understand correctly, the HC does not have any original crimminal jurisdiction. Treason is within the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court (TD) but not the County Court, so most likely the Supreme Court, or perhaps in some Federal instances the Federal Court.

Most instances of treason (as a general crime, e.g. in other countries, since its a very rare charge here) are usually considered crimes against a nation, I believe. So it's more than likely that if someone were to be tried for treason in Australia it would be heard in the Federal Court, since treason against an individual state rather than against Australia as a nation would be difficult to define. If somehow somebody were to be found carrying out activities that only affect an individual state then I guess it would be heard in the Supreme Court (in the case of Victoria).

I highly doubt you would be expected to, let alone be required to put that much thought into a hypothetical scenario explaining the courts' jurisdictions in a VCE Legal Studies exam. You'll probably be safe by just stating that the Supreme Court does have the jurisdiction to hear instances of treason and leave it at that.

[Dem16]

How would you respond if you were asked to evaluate the principles of government??

[KDB]

How would you respond if you were asked to evaluate the principles of government??

Can they even ask that? Are there even weaknesses of having a representative government or responsible government?

[Glasses]

Technically speaking I think they can ask something like that - although I think it would definitely be a curveball if they did.

With regards to representative government I guess a weakness could be something along the lines of political influence influencing Parliament and MPs being scared to pass controversial but necessary laws out of fear of being voted out of office.

With responsible government, it's a bit more tricky - but you could similarly argue that due to public scrutiny, MPs can be reluctant to pass controversial but necessary laws. You might also be able to suggest that public scrutiny makes it more difficult for Parliament to 'get things done', and that things like question time take time away from the law-making function of Parliament.

Regarding the separation of powers, you could argue that since there is some crossover, there could be a conflict of interest.

Like I said, it would surely trip a lot of people up, but fingers crossed they don't ask it!

[Dem16]

Thanks, thats very helpful!
Also....should we know all the types of damages in detail?

[Glasses]

Thanks, thats very helpful!
Also....should we know all the types of damages in detail?

I'm doubtful they would ask a question directly asking for an explanation of the different types of damages - but it would probably be worth having some idea of them generally (but I wouldn't stress about heaps of detail). Your focus should be on 'purpose'

[phurell]

if there was a 10 marker on an evaluation of the way australia/country-of-choice protect rights, would this be a good structure of how to set it out?

a) introduction of both countries and rights in general terms
-
b) differences and similarities in actual rights protected (e.g Express rights in Australia, Civil/Political rights in USA) and the extent of them
-
c) the comparison of actual approaches to how rights are protected (Bill of Rights, How the Consititution can change and be enforced etc) & then;
-
d) an overall conclusion of which country provides better protection and summary of reasons why

? ? ? ? ?

[Beamer]

if there was a 10 marker on an evaluation of the way australia/country-of-choice protect rights, would this be a good structure of how to set it out?

a) introduction of both countries and rights in general terms
-
b) differences and similarities in actual rights protected (e.g Express rights in Australia, Civil/Political rights in USA) and the extent of them
-
c) the comparison of actual approaches to how rights are protected (Bill of Rights, How the Consititution can change and be enforced etc) & then;
-
d) an overall conclusion of which country provides better protection and summary of reasons why

? ? ? ? ?

Decent structure. From what I've seen most of these questions ask specifically about each country's approach to the protection of rights, so you'll want to focus a lot on your part C.

[powergab]

Hi!

I was just wondering what time plan I should go through in the legal exam? Like how much time should I have left once I get to the 8 and 10 mark questions?

[Beamer]

Hi!

I was just wondering what time plan I should go through in the legal exam? Like how much time should I have left once I get to the 8 and 10 mark questions?

The general rule I've always followed is 2 minutes per mark but that leaves you 20 minutes over in the Legal exam. So you'll want to shave off those 20 minutes (plus some more) in the smaller questions to leave you more than enough time to be able to commit two minutes per mark in the 8-10 mark questions, which is possible if you know the content and address only what's asked of you. For example, completing the 3 mark questions in 4 minutes or smashing out the 2 mark questions in a minute or less. Then you should have enough time to be able to spend 20-25 (even 30) minutes on the 10 mark question and 16-20 minutes on the 8 mark question(s).

[HopefulLawStudent]

Decent structure. From what I've seen most of these questions ask specifically about each country's approach to the protection of rights, so you'll want to focus a lot on your part C.

1.5 minutes per mark works better.

I think of it more like:
3 marks 5 mins
5 marks 8 mins
6 marks 10 mins
8 marks 14 mins
10 marks 18 mins

[powergab]

Thank you!!

[Glasses]

if there was a 10 marker on an evaluation of the way australia/country-of-choice protect rights, would this be a good structure of how to set it out?

a) introduction of both countries and rights in general terms
-
b) differences and similarities in actual rights protected (e.g Express rights in Australia, Civil/Political rights in USA) and the extent of them
-
c) the comparison of actual approaches to how rights are protected (Bill of Rights, How the Consititution can change and be enforced etc) & then;
-
d) an overall conclusion of which country provides better protection and summary of reasons why

? ? ? ? ?

Just be mindful of detailing the differences in the rights protected. The focus should be on the 'approaches', not the actual rights. You won't get any marks for stating that "whilst the US has the express right of the right to bear arms, Australia has the express right of..." Instead, focus on the approach. I.e. "The US Constitution contains many express rights, outlined in a Bill of Rights which apply to both Federal and State legislatures, whilst in contrast, the Commonwealth Constitution only contains 5 express rights, with some of these only applying to the Commonwealth, and not the state Parliaments - such as S.80, the right to a trial by jury for Commonwealth indictable offences."

[phurell]

Just be careful of detailing the differences in the rights protected. The focus should be on the 'approaches', not the actual rights. You won't get any marks for stating that "whilst the US has the express right of the right to bear arms, Australia has the express right of..." Instead, focus on the approach. I.e. "The US Constitution contains many express rights, outlined in a Bill of Rights which apply to both Federal and State legislatures, whilst in contrast, the Commonwealth Constitution only contains 5 express rights, with some of these only applying to the Commonwealth, and not the state Parliaments - such as S.80, the right to a trial by jury for Commonwealth indictable offences."

yeah! i wouldn't go into detail about specific rights i just meant how Australia provides rights in the form of express rights, implied rights and structural protections vs the USA's comprehensive Bill of Rights (that include political/civil rights)

-

also, when describing two different types of damages that could be awarded is it okay to say both specific & general damages even though they both come under compensatory?

[reards]

I'm sorry if this is a stupid question but how are decisions of VCAT binding and legally enforcable on the parties? is this when the case is presided over by the vice-president/president of VCAT?