ATAR Notes: Forum
Archived Discussion => Humanities => 2012 => End-of-year exams => Exam Discussion => Victoria => Legal Studies => Topic started by: eeps on November 09, 2012, 05:11:33 pm
-
Title is self-explanatory. This thread is purely for exam discussion ONLY.
Also, if someone has a spare copy of the exam paper - if they could kindly scan and upload it, that would be much appreciated.
-
I enjoyed it! Majority of the questions were very straightforward and on areas that I knew really well!
Hope everyone else enjoyed it! xx
But I think I broke my hand :( So sore!
-
I was satisfied with how I went. YEAR 12 IS OVER!!! :D
Bit disappointed that Canada was overlooked for a second year in a row considering how much I studied for it.
-
I really like it, it was a great exam :D
-
what part of the legislative process was it in question one?
-
It was royal assent from what I heard from classmates
-
i think i made stupid mistakes!
IS THE FIRST QUESTION PROCLAMATION? NO WAY (APPARENTLY THATS WHAT MY LEGAL TEACHER SAID FUUU)
+ THE QUESTION ABOUT COURTS ABILITY TO CHANGE LAWS? (DA FARQ?)
-
sadboy: RODD- Reversing, overruling, distinguishing and disapproving that's how courts change precedent
-
if you mentioned the US in the last question will you get marks deducted?
I just said however australia dosnt have a bill of rights like some other countries (e.g. the us)
will i get marks deducted ^
-
sadboy: RODD- Reversing, overruling, distinguishing and disapproving that's how courts change precedent
i didn't meantion that do you think i will get no more than 3/6?
-
Pretty good exam overall. Most questions were straightforward with the possible exception of the second last one, which required a little thought. Only finished with a second to go though, so didn't get a chance to look over answers.
-
Yes you will since it referred to high court cases, america is really irrelevant to that question as it only asks for Australia. You need to discuss a case not what is apart of American law
-
Yes you will since it referred to high court cases, america is really irrelevant to that question as it only asks for Australia. You need to discuss a case not what is apart of American law
But i explained structural, entreched, implied rights + referendum + 1 high court case
than at the end i said however australia's protection of rights is not perfect, as they do not have a bill of rights such as usa
will i lose alot of marks?
-
That exam was fantastic!
A lot of writing (but obviously that was expected)
Was surprised there was nothing relative to the high court cases interpretation we needed to know such as tasmanian dams case but meh
Yaaaay
-
I thought assesor's dont deduct marks they just dont give you marks for incorrect answers?
-
Not sure about the US comparison, you could of used it when talking about the lack of express rights, I'm not too sure. Found the last few questions quite... open?
Had a bit of trouble at juries, but I think I did good. Almost laughed during reading time, a lot of it was fairly straight forward.
-
pretty sure in the courts changing law you could talk about statutory interpretation as well. like narrowing (studded belt) influencing parliament(trigwell) etc.
-
Yes you will since it referred to high court cases, america is really irrelevant to that question as it only asks for Australia. You need to discuss a case not what is apart of American law
But i explained structural, entreched, implied rights + referendum + 1 high court case
than at the end i said however australia's protection of rights is not perfect, as they do not have a bill of rights such as usa
will i lose alot of marks?
You are only required to discussed the structural protection of rights and referendum not in detail though and provide a example of a case protecting rights and if you did you will be awarded marks. If you discussed how rights were protected in that case and how section 128 provides protection of rights then you will be fine.
-
pretty sure in the courts changing law you could talk about statutory interpretation as well. like narrowing (studded belt) influencing parliament(trigwell) etc.
That also could be included :D
-
im probably just overthinking it ahh well
i get 40+ so be it
i get 35+ so be it
whatever, no more court cases!
-
What did everyone put for the first question? I skimmed over the excerpt and put that it was proclamation. Some people have said that royal assent isn't really published in the Government Gazette?
-
I thought assesor's dont deduct marks they just dont give you marks for incorrect answers?
If you gave an incorrect response that does not relate towards the question then you will not awarded any marks
-
It was definitely royal assent.
-
Yes you will since it referred to high court cases, america is really irrelevant to that question as it only asks for Australia. You need to discuss a case not what is apart of American law
But i explained structural, entreched, implied rights + referendum + 1 high court case
than at the end i said however australia's protection of rights is not perfect, as they do not have a bill of rights such as usa
will i lose alot of marks?
You are only required to discussed the structural protection of rights and referendum not in detail though and provide a example of a case protecting rights and if you did you will be awarded marks. If you discussed how rights were protected in that case and how section 128 provides protection of rights then you will be fine.
Couldn't you mention implied rights also as the prominent case that protected our constitution rights (Australian Capital Television v. the Commonwealth) established our implied right to freedom of political communication.
-
What did everyone put for the first question? I skimmed over the excerpt and put that it was proclamation. Some people have said that royal assent isn't really published in the Government Gazette?
From what I heard, it was the proclamation not the royal assent
-
can't believe it was proclamation what a trick!
-
Yes you will since it referred to high court cases, america is really irrelevant to that question as it only asks for Australia. You need to discuss a case not what is apart of American law
But i explained structural, entreched, implied rights + referendum + 1 high court case
than at the end i said however australia's protection of rights is not perfect, as they do not have a bill of rights such as usa
will i lose alot of marks?
You are only required to discussed the structural protection of rights and referendum not in detail though and provide a example of a case protecting rights and if you did you will be awarded marks. If you discussed how rights were protected in that case and how section 128 provides protection of rights then you will be fine.
Couldn't you mention implied rights also as the prominent case that protected our constitution rights (Australian Capital Television v. the Commonwealth) was an implied right
Yes you should have mentioned implied rights aswell hence the case - you would have said that the High Court can continue to imply rights thus continue to ensure rights are protected.
-
im probably just overthinking it ahh well
i get 40+ so be it
i get 35+ so be it
whatever, no more court cases!
Don't over think it, you may be putting yourself down for nothing, don't stress over it as you may have done better than what you think you did, what has been done is done, you can't do anything about it
-
what did you guys talk about for the VLRC question?
-
Yes you will since it referred to high court cases, america is really irrelevant to that question as it only asks for Australia. You need to discuss a case not what is apart of American law
But i explained structural, entreched, implied rights + referendum + 1 high court case
than at the end i said however australia's protection of rights is not perfect, as they do not have a bill of rights such as usa
will i lose alot of marks?
You are only required to discussed the structural protection of rights and referendum not in detail though and provide a example of a case protecting rights and if you did you will be awarded marks. If you discussed how rights were protected in that case and how section 128 provides protection of rights then you will be fine.
Couldn't you mention implied rights also as the prominent case that protected our constitution rights (Australian Capital Television v. the Commonwealth) established our implied right to freedom of political communication.
But it referred to structural protection of rights so I would really assume that it strictly is only structural protection of rights cases like Roach Case. I don't know that this is true and I really hope this is not the case
-
Yes you will since it referred to high court cases, america is really irrelevant to that question as it only asks for Australia. You need to discuss a case not what is apart of American law
But i explained structural, entreched, implied rights + referendum + 1 high court case
than at the end i said however australia's protection of rights is not perfect, as they do not have a bill of rights such as usa
will i lose alot of marks?
You are only required to discussed the structural protection of rights and referendum not in detail though and provide a example of a case protecting rights and if you did you will be awarded marks. If you discussed how rights were protected in that case and how section 128 provides protection of rights then you will be fine.
Couldn't you mention implied rights also as the prominent case that protected our constitution rights (Australian Capital Television v. the Commonwealth) established our implied right to freedom of political communication.
But it referred to structural protection of rights so I would really assume that it strictly is only structural protection of rights cases like Roach Case. I don't know that this is true and I really hope this is not the case
How did it refer to structural protection?
-
what did you guys talk about for the VLRC question?
I mentioned about investigations, having people opinions that's it lmao
-
Please tell me the first question was Royal Assent. If it wasn't, then FML
-
Yes you will since it referred to high court cases, america is really irrelevant to that question as it only asks for Australia. You need to discuss a case not what is apart of American law
But i explained structural, entreched, implied rights + referendum + 1 high court case
than at the end i said however australia's protection of rights is not perfect, as they do not have a bill of rights such as usa
will i lose alot of marks?
You are only required to discussed the structural protection of rights and referendum not in detail though and provide a example of a case protecting rights and if you did you will be awarded marks. If you discussed how rights were protected in that case and how section 128 provides protection of rights then you will be fine.
Couldn't you mention implied rights also as the prominent case that protected our constitution rights (Australian Capital Television v. the Commonwealth) established our implied right to freedom of political communication.
But it referred to structural protection of rights so I would really assume that it strictly is only structural protection of rights cases like Roach Case. I don't know that this is true and I really hope this is not the case
How did it refer to structural protection?
It explicitly said "structural protection of rights" from memory
-
Please tell me the first question was Royal Assent. If it wasn't, then FML
I think it was proclamation :(
-
Yes you will since it referred to high court cases, america is really irrelevant to that question as it only asks for Australia. You need to discuss a case not what is apart of American law
But i explained structural, entreched, implied rights + referendum + 1 high court case
than at the end i said however australia's protection of rights is not perfect, as they do not have a bill of rights such as usa
will i lose alot of marks?
You are only required to discussed the structural protection of rights and referendum not in detail though and provide a example of a case protecting rights and if you did you will be awarded marks. If you discussed how rights were protected in that case and how section 128 provides protection of rights then you will be fine.
Couldn't you mention implied rights also as the prominent case that protected our constitution rights (Australian Capital Television v. the Commonwealth) established our implied right to freedom of political communication.
But it referred to structural protection of rights so I would really assume that it strictly is only structural protection of rights cases like Roach Case. I don't know that this is true and I really hope this is not the case
How did it refer to structural protection?
It explicitly said "structural protection of rights" from memory
are we talking about the 10marker?
lolwat 10 marks on structural protection?
-
it was royal assent, proclamation is when a date is set for the law to become effective, nothing suggested a date and it mentioned it being assented therefore royal assent
-
Yes you will since it referred to high court cases, america is really irrelevant to that question as it only asks for Australia. You need to discuss a case not what is apart of American law
But i explained structural, entreched, implied rights + referendum + 1 high court case
than at the end i said however australia's protection of rights is not perfect, as they do not have a bill of rights such as usa
will i lose alot of marks?
You are only required to discussed the structural protection of rights and referendum not in detail though and provide a example of a case protecting rights and if you did you will be awarded marks. If you discussed how rights were protected in that case and how section 128 provides protection of rights then you will be fine.
Couldn't you mention implied rights also as the prominent case that protected our constitution rights (Australian Capital Television v. the Commonwealth) established our implied right to freedom of political communication.
But it referred to structural protection of rights so I would really assume that it strictly is only structural protection of rights cases like Roach Case. I don't know that this is true and I really hope this is not the case
How did it refer to structural protection?
It explicitly said "structural protection of rights" from memory
are we talking about the 10marker?
lolwat 10 marks on structural protection?
Yeah lmao that's what I have been talking about the whole time... unless you're talking about another question lololololololol
-
Looking through my books it seems like it was proclamation :(
-
it was royal assent, proclamation is when a date is set for the law to become effective, nothing suggested a date and it mentioned it being assented therefore royal assent
If it didn't mention the date ( I think it didn't) then you're right
-
Looking through my books it seems like it was proclamation :(
This was a tricky question to be honest :(, didn't even answer it
-
Please tell me the first question was Royal Assent. If it wasn't, then FML
100% sure it was royal assent
-
Please tell me the first question was Royal Assent. If it wasn't, then FML
100% sure it was royal assent
my legal teacher said it was proclomation fuuu
-
So guys how did you find the exam? Easy? Hard? For me, it was really easy and I didn't study :P
-
Yeah I think it was proclamation. Damn!!!
-
Yeah I think it was proclamation. Damn!!!
Really eager to get a copy of the exam to confirm whether it was assent or proclamation ><
-
I think it was proclamation as it was published in the Gazette. Tricky question. A date doesn't necessarily need to be mentioned as a law can come into operation 28 days after publication :/ Hard first question!
-
I think it was proclamation as it was published in the Gazette. Tricky question. A date doesn't necessarily need to be mentioned as a law can come into operation 28 days after publication :/ Hard first question!
Exactly very tricky, my bad you're right ><
-
I wonder how much people would have gotten question 1 right...not much I'm guessing. Even if it fooled the smartest Legal student at my school!
But apart from that the exam was okay. Could have done better in the "How do courts change law" question and the essay. Expecting around a 55/70, dunno if I can get that but let's hope :)
-
Hansaard is not limited to publishing at proclomation
-
Was it easier or harder than last year's exam? If anyone has a spare copy of the exam, could they upload it.
-
Was it easier or harder than last year's exam? If anyone has a spare copy of the exam, could they upload it.
Felt much easier really, don't have a copy :(
-
plus the question asked what stage is being referred to in the article. It was referring to royal assent, there was no mention of proclamation
-
dam proclomation! lol
-
plus the question asked what stage is being referred to in the article. It was referring to royal assent, there was no mention of proclamation
You could be right! :) Hard to tell without a copy of the exam and my mind has gone to mush
-
That first question was very tricky, I stated that it was royal assent but I did mention proclamation.
For the court question about changing the law, I didn't mention the precedents at all.
Now i'm worried because all I talked about was interpretation, doctrine of ultra vires and applying a statute to a case and thus outlining it's use.
Anyway, all in all it was much trickier and harder then previous years, very surprised to hear people say it was easy.
-
I just saw the word assented and went for it hahaha
-
what did you guys talk about for the section 109 question? Does it restrict states ?
It does to an extend but did you have to talk about residual powers? wasnt sure how to get full marks for that one
-
So do most people think it was easier than last years? What was the 10 marker? (did it last year)
-
I just saw the word assented and went for it hahaha
LOL THIS!
i didnt even read it all i saw as ".......Governor-General.......................... assent......"
my mind was like yep royal assent lol
-
what did you guys talk about for the section 109 question? Does it restrict states ?
It does to an extend but did you have to talk about residual powers? wasnt sure how to get full marks for that one
Had to mention exclusive powers.
-
what did you guys talk about for the section 109 question? Does it restrict states ?
It does to an extend but did you have to talk about residual powers? wasnt sure how to get full marks for that one
You should of talked about inconsistency in the laws for concurrent power, so the state law found to be inconsistent the commonwealth law will prevail over state law to the extent of that inconsistency.
-
I found the 109 one difficult as well. I ended up just saying what Section 109 does and basically repeating it in different words haha.
-
Ahh crap, I included sections 114 and 115 as a restriction on states power. But didn't mention exclusive powers
-
Really curious as to what the 10 mark question was, glad to see many of you thought it was easy, hopefully that trend continues through next year!
-
So do most people think it was easier than last years? What was the 10 marker? (did it last year)
Yes for me I really did. Can't remember whole question about it was about structural protection of rights and to what extent are rights protected, and you have to refer to a high court interpretation
-
Really curious as to what the 10 mark question was, glad to see many of you thought it was easy, hopefully that trend continues through next year!
someting on the lines of structural protection of rights and to what extent are rights protected, and you have to refer to a high court interpretation about a case that protected rights
-
what did you guys talk about for the section 109 question? Does it restrict states ?
It does to an extend but did you have to talk about residual powers? wasnt sure how to get full marks for that one
Had to mention exclusive powers.
I talked about concurrent powers o.0
-
With the first question on royal assent/proclamation I spoke to my tutor who is an examiner he said that it was a tricky question and VCAA could accept both responses however, it leans towards being proclamation as royal assent is not proclaimed in the Gazette. And, the Gazette does not need to mention the date of operation - if it is not mentioned, it comes into operation 28 days after the Assent was given which is why the date of Assent was stated in the extract.
-
With the first question on royal assent/proclamation I spoke to my tutor who is an examiner he said that it was a tricky question and VCAA could accept both responses however, it leans towards being proclamation as royal assent is not proclaimed in the Gazette. And, the Gazette does not need to mention the date of operation - if it is not mentioned, it comes into operation 28 days after the Assent was given which is why the date of Assent was stated in the extract.
Wow that's really awesome :D
-
what did you guys talk about for the section 109 question? Does it restrict states ?
It does to an extend but did you have to talk about residual powers? wasnt sure how to get full marks for that one
Had to mention exclusive powers.
I talked about concurrent powers o.0
I don't think you had to mention exclusive powers because it talked about the restriction on the states, and even though exclusive powers are only exerciseable by the commonwealth, it does not related to section 109.
-
what did you guys talk about for the section 109 question? Does it restrict states ?
It does to an extend but did you have to talk about residual powers? wasnt sure how to get full marks for that one
Had to mention exclusive powers.
I talked about concurrent powers o.0
I don't think you had to mention exclusive powers because it talked about the restriction on the states, and even though exclusive powers are only exerciseable by the commonwealth, it does not related to section 109.
I really sure you have to mention concurrent powers
-
just talk about concurrent powers and inconsistency, then to make your argument stronger discuss how it is used eg tas dams.
-
Wasn't the last question about Section 128 and how the Constitution protects human rights? I don't remember it stating specifically structural protections, although it would be good to talk about them. Also it asked for a high court case about rights.
-
it didn't specifically say human or structural it said rights in australia.
-
Wasn't the last question about Section 128 and how the Constitution protects human rights? I don't remember it stating specifically structural protections, although it would be good to talk about them. Also it asked for a high court case about rights.
I think it was (not sure), something about protecting rights and a high court case
-
it didn't specifically say human or structural it said rights in australia.
Really o.0?
-
Yes Dejo, kicking myself that I didn't state structural protection though
-
the high court case had to be structural, but the rest was rights in general, i am pretty sure.
-
the high court case had to be structural, but the rest was rights in general, i am pretty sure.
Not really, I used the Lange vs ABC case, teacher said it was fine.
-
I did royal assent for the first one, I didn't think this exam was that easy to be honest. I felt that a lot of the questions required a fair amount of thought and were quite open for interpretation, I think the last question said this:
The Australian constitution effectively protects rights in many ways, in part section 128
To what extent do you agree with this statement, in your answer refer to one high court case in regards to the protection of rights
^not exact but similar to this
-
the question was to discuss rights in Australia and the extent to which s.128 protect rights. You could have said that while it protects entrenched (express rights), there are other forms of protection such as implied rights via interpretation of the High Court (using the Australian Capital Television or Lange case) and structural rights.
As long you had some sort of discussion relevant to the question you should be fine.
-
The question was to discuss rights in Australia and the extent to which s.128 protect rights. You could have said that while it protects entrenched (express rights), there are other forms of protection such as implied rights via interpretation of the High Court (using the Australian Capital Television case) and structural rights.
As long you had some sort of discussion relevant to the question you should be fine.
I though it was just structural :/, but thanks for clearing up the confusion :D
-
explain one reason why states refer their powers?
I just said inconsistency and gave an example e.g. ex-nuptial children in family law matters
-
explain one reason why states refer their powers?
I just said inconsistency and gave an example e.g. ex-nuptial children in family law matters
I wrote down states may refer their powers in cases involving terrorism or international corporate matter. Hope that was okay too haha.
Back to that royal assent/proclamation question number 1. It stated what stage was outlined in that exerpt, which I'm pretty sure was a Royal assent
-
I just saw the word assented and went for it hahaha
LOL THIS!
i didnt even read it all i saw as ".......Governor-General.......................... assent......"
my mind was like yep royal assent lol
Hahaha.. I did exactly the same thing!!! :D
-
What did everyone put for the question about the extent to which damages compensates the plaintiff? I said that some damages eg. compensatory offer compensation to cover expenses as well as pain and suffering but there are other damages which do not seek to compensate the plaintiff (eg. contemptuous damages, exemplary damages & nominal damages)
-
What did everyone put for the question about the extent to which damages compensates the plaintiff? I said that some damages eg. compensatory offer compensation to cover expenses as well as pain and suffering but there are other damages which do not seek to compensate the plaintiff (eg. contemptuous damages, exemplary damages & nominal damages)
I said that both the purpose can't and can be achieved but it didn't include all the damages
-
What do you guys think will be the cut off for an A+? :)
-
What do you guys think will be the cut off for an A+? :)
60
-
for question 10 was it ok to talk about how australia has an extensive bill of rights and that we are run under an inquisitorial system (Kevin Rudd) and then how australia protects rights through giving easier remedies like home detention instead of the death sentence??
cheers guys 8)
-
What did people write for:
The Supreme Court (trial) doesn't have to follow precedents from the Supreme Court (Appeal). Why is this? 2 marks.
HAD NO FUCKING CLUE... because they are the supreme law making body?
-
What did people write for:
The Supreme Court (trial) doesn't have to follow precedents from the Supreme Court (Appeal). Why is this? 2 marks.
HAD NO FUCKING CLUE... because they are the supreme law making body?
I put distinguishing - the trial division found material facts different between cases
-
What did people write for:
The Supreme Court (trial) doesn't have to follow precedents from the Supreme Court (Appeal). Why is this? 2 marks.
HAD NO FUCKING CLUE... because they are the supreme law making body?
I said that that the precedent was a persuasive one, meaning it doesn't have to be followed.
-
What did people write for:
The Supreme Court (trial) doesn't have to follow precedents from the Supreme Court (Appeal). Why is this? 2 marks.
HAD NO FUCKING CLUE... because they are the supreme law making body?
I put distinguishing - the trial division found material facts different between cases
I put that they were on the same level of the hierarchy meaning precedent didn't have to be followed
-
What did people write for:
The Supreme Court (trial) doesn't have to follow precedents from the Supreme Court (Appeal). Why is this? 2 marks.
HAD NO FUCKING CLUE... because they are the supreme law making body?
I put distinguishing - the trial division found material facts different between cases
I put that they were on the same level of the hierarchy meaning precedent didn't have to be followed
I'm not sure if that would happen because cases from the trial division can go to appeal in the Court of Appeal and therefore they're not on the same level because the COA reviews the decision of the TD.
-
What did people write for:
The Supreme Court (trial) doesn't have to follow precedents from the Supreme Court (Appeal). Why is this? 2 marks.
HAD NO FUCKING CLUE... because they are the supreme law making body?
I put distinguishing - the trial division found material facts different between cases
I put that they were on the same level of the hierarchy meaning precedent didn't have to be followed
I'm not sure if that would happen because cases from the trial division can go to appeal in the Court of Appeal and therefore they're not on the same level because the COA reviews the decision of the TD.
I also believe that it was disapproving because the supreme court is broken up into two divisions and even thought the court of appeal is a higher division, they still fall under the jurisdiction of the supreme court. Bloody VCAA, this paper was full of ambiguities this year.
-
What did people write for:
The Supreme Court (trial) doesn't have to follow precedents from the Supreme Court (Appeal). Why is this? 2 marks.
HAD NO FUCKING CLUE... because they are the supreme law making body?
I put distinguishing - the trial division found material facts different between cases
I put that they were on the same level of the hierarchy meaning precedent didn't have to be followed
I'm not sure if that would happen because cases from the trial division can go to appeal in the Court of Appeal and therefore they're not on the same level because the COA reviews the decision of the TD.
I also believe that it was disapproving because the supreme court is broken up into two divisions and even thought the court of appeal is a higher division, they still fall under the jurisdiction of the supreme court. Bloody VCAA, this paper was full of ambiguities this year.
Courts on the same level of the hierarchy don't have to follow their own precedents they can make another even if it conflcits with the original precedent
-
What did people write for:
The Supreme Court (trial) doesn't have to follow precedents from the Supreme Court (Appeal). Why is this? 2 marks.
HAD NO FUCKING CLUE... because they are the supreme law making body?
I put distinguishing - the trial division found material facts different between cases
I put that they were on the same level of the hierarchy meaning precedent didn't have to be followed
I'm not sure if that would happen because cases from the trial division can go to appeal in the Court of Appeal and therefore they're not on the same level because the COA reviews the decision of the TD.
I also believe that it was disapproving because the supreme court is broken up into two divisions and even thought the court of appeal is a higher division, they still fall under the jurisdiction of the supreme court. Bloody VCAA, this paper was full of ambiguities this year.
Courts on the same level of the hierarchy don't have to follow their own precedents they can make another even if it conflcits with the original precedent
I would assume that because it's not really a separate so that's why I though it was on the same level...
-
What did people write for:
The Supreme Court (trial) doesn't have to follow precedents from the Supreme Court (Appeal). Why is this? 2 marks.
HAD NO FUCKING CLUE... because they are the supreme law making body?
I put distinguishing - the trial division found material facts different between cases
I put that they were on the same level of the hierarchy meaning precedent didn't have to be followed
I'm not sure if that would happen because cases from the trial division can go to appeal in the Court of Appeal and therefore they're not on the same level because the COA reviews the decision of the TD.
I also believe that it was disapproving because the supreme court is broken up into two divisions and even thought the court of appeal is a higher division, they still fall under the jurisdiction of the supreme court. Bloody VCAA, this paper was full of ambiguities this year.
Courts on the same level of the hierarchy don't have to follow their own precedents they can make another even if it conflcits with the original precedent
I really don't think thats true of the Supreme Court though - it has two distinct divisions with two distinct jurisdictions. The Court of Appeal has no original jurisdiction, unlike the trial division. So the case in the extract would have begun as a case in the Trial Division, been appealed to the Court of Appeal and then a binding precedent was set. Because it is binding, the only think it could do would be to distinguish. It is impossible for the case to have commenced in the Court of Appeal.
-
What did people write for:
The Supreme Court (trial) doesn't have to follow precedents from the Supreme Court (Appeal). Why is this? 2 marks.
HAD NO FUCKING CLUE... because they are the supreme law making body?
I put distinguishing - the trial division found material facts different between cases
I put that they were on the same level of the hierarchy meaning precedent didn't have to be followed
I'm not sure if that would happen because cases from the trial division can go to appeal in the Court of Appeal and therefore they're not on the same level because the COA reviews the decision of the TD.
I also believe that it was disapproving because the supreme court is broken up into two divisions and even thought the court of appeal is a higher division, they still fall under the jurisdiction of the supreme court. Bloody VCAA, this paper was full of ambiguities this year.
Courts on the same level of the hierarchy don't have to follow their own precedents they can make another even if it conflcits with the original precedent
I really don't think thats true of the Supreme Court though - it has two distinct divisions with two distinct jurisdictions. The Court of Appeal has no original jurisdiction, unlike the trial division. So the case in the extract would have begun as a case in the Trial Division, been appealed to the Court of Appeal and then a binding precedent was set. Because it is binding, the only think it could do would be to distinguish. It is impossible for the case to have commenced in the Court of Appeal.
Yes this is true but the trial division and the court of appeal are both sub-divisions of the Supreme Court
They have their own jurisdictions but are considered on the same level as tehy both come under their heading of the supreme court
-
People are over-complicating this
- same level of hiearchy
- dosnt have to be followed
2 marks
-
The Court of Appeal is above the Supreme Court Trial Division. The only method was distinguishing. They may be separate divisions of the same court, but they differ in their standing in the hierarchy.
-
According to a report by Sydney Uni which I found online, "a single judge is bound by the decisions of the appellate court in that judicial hierarchy. Eg, a single judge in the Victorian Supreme Court is bound by decisions of the Victorian Court of Appeal" - so distinguishing is the only answer.
http://sydney.edu.au/law/cstudent/undergrad/docs_pdfs/exchange/Inbound_Introduction_CL_reasoning_2012.pdf
-
I still maintain that it is disapproving
Both sub-divisions are part of the supreme court, just because they have different jurisidictions doesn't mean one is higher
It's the same place with the same judges
And if teh court of appeal was higher it wouldn't be part of the supreme court
-
I still maintain that it is disapproving
Both sub-divisions are part of the supreme court, just because they have different jurisidictions doesn't mean one is higher
It's the same place with the same judges
And if teh court of appeal was higher it wouldn't be part of the supreme court
Check out the link above. It says that even though its in the same court, the appellate division creates binding precedent
-
I still maintain that it is disapproving
Both sub-divisions are part of the supreme court, just because they have different jurisidictions doesn't mean one is higher
It's the same place with the same judges
And if teh court of appeal was higher it wouldn't be part of the supreme court
Check out the link above. It says that even though its in the same court, the appellate division creates binding precedent
A DIRECT quote from the legal studies text book "The Court of appeal is part of the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice is a member of both courts"
-
I still maintain that it is disapproving
Both sub-divisions are part of the supreme court, just because they have different jurisidictions doesn't mean one is higher
It's the same place with the same judges
And if teh court of appeal was higher it wouldn't be part of the supreme court
Check out the link above. It says that even though its in the same court, the appellate division creates binding precedent
A DIRECT quote from the legal studies text book "The Court of appeal is part of the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice is a member of both courts"
There you go if its in one of the textbooks that students study VCAA can't tell us we are wrong
-
I still maintain that it is disapproving
Both sub-divisions are part of the supreme court, just because they have different jurisidictions doesn't mean one is higher
It's the same place with the same judges
And if teh court of appeal was higher it wouldn't be part of the supreme court
Yeah I wrote the same type of answer as yourself. Even though I didn't directly say it was disapproving, but I did imply it clearly and explained it. Would I lose a mark for not saying disapproving?
-
I still maintain that it is disapproving
Both sub-divisions are part of the supreme court, just because they have different jurisidictions doesn't mean one is higher
It's the same place with the same judges
And if teh court of appeal was higher it wouldn't be part of the supreme court
Check out the link above. It says that even though its in the same court, the appellate division creates binding precedent
A DIRECT quote from the legal studies text book "The Court of appeal is part of the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice is a member of both courts"
That has nothing to do with the question though. The court of appeal is apart of the Supreme Court. Even if the chief justice is a member of both courts, the rulings made in appellate jurisdiction become binding. Eg. you have a case in trial division, it gets appealed on a point of law and the court of appeal reverses the decision made earlier in the trial division = a new precedent is set as it overrides the previous decision
-
I still maintain that it is disapproving
Both sub-divisions are part of the supreme court, just because they have different jurisidictions doesn't mean one is higher
It's the same place with the same judges
And if teh court of appeal was higher it wouldn't be part of the supreme court
Check out the link above. It says that even though its in the same court, the appellate division creates binding precedent
A DIRECT quote from the legal studies text book "The Court of appeal is part of the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice is a member of both courts"
That has nothing to do with the question though. The court of appeal is apart of the Supreme Court. Even if the chief justice is a member of both courts, the rulings made in appellate jurisdiction become binding. Eg. you have a case in trial division, it gets appealed on a point of law and the court of appeal reverses the decision made earlier in the trial division = a new precedent is set as it overrides the previous decision
It has a whole lot to do with the question. If the judges work in both the trial court of appeals divisions then the precedent should be distinguished because they are of equal standing. Yes the court of appeals is higher though so I understand where you're coming from. But, I still regard it as being dissaproving because this division is only in the supreme court, the court of appeal is not a court in its own standing.
-
A direct quote from the Legal Studies textbook "The Court of Appeal, which is a division or part of the Supreme Court..." (p.134)
Disapproving should be a valid answer.
-
A direct quote from the Legal Studies textbook "The Court of Appeal, which is a division or part of the Supreme Court..." (p.134)
Disapproving should be a valid answer.
Exactly. See this years exam is just full of amibiguities. I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned this was an odd exam which threw off even the brightest of students. Even my teacher stated said it was a strange exam considering 2011 was still pretty hard but much more straight foward.
-
A direct quote from the Legal Studies textbook "The Court of Appeal, which is a division or part of the Supreme Court..." (p.134)
Disapproving should be a valid answer.
I agree mate
What i think might confuse people is that in the textbook i use (key concepts)
The hierarchy picture shows the court of appeal above the trial division but this is only to show that you can appeal from the trial division to teh court of appeal
However the differentiation only occurs within the court itself not in the entire hierarchy
If the court of appeal was higher it would be its own court and if you look anywhere it will tell you the Supreme Court is the highest in victoria not the court of appeal
-
A direct quote from the Legal Studies textbook "The Court of Appeal, which is a division or part of the Supreme Court..." (p.134)
Disapproving should be a valid answer.
I agree mate
What i think might confuse people is that in the textbook i use (key concepts)
The hierarchy picture shows the court of appeal above the trial division but this is only to show that you can appeal from the trial division to teh court of appeal
However the differentiation only occurs within the court itself not in the entire hierarchy
If the court of appeal was higher it would be its own court and if you look anywhere it will tell you the Supreme Court is the highest in victoria not the court of appeal
Agreed. That picture might throw people off side, but reading the section on the Court of Appeal should make it clear enough that the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal are in the same hierarchy.
A direct quote from the Legal Studies textbook "The Court of Appeal, which is a division or part of the Supreme Court..." (p.134)
Disapproving should be a valid answer.
Exactly. See this years exam is just full of amibiguities. I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned this was an odd exam which threw off even the brightest of students. Even my teacher stated said it was a strange exam considering 2011 was still pretty hard but much more straight foward.
Too true. The wording in this years exam was disgraceful. VCAA bombed out this year, just hope we don't lose marks because of their inability to construct an exam that asks clear questions
-
A direct quote from the Legal Studies textbook "The Court of Appeal, which is a division or part of the Supreme Court..." (p.134)
Disapproving should be a valid answer.
I agree mate
What i think might confuse people is that in the textbook i use (key concepts)
The hierarchy picture shows the court of appeal above the trial division but this is only to show that you can appeal from the trial division to teh court of appeal
However the differentiation only occurs within the court itself not in the entire hierarchy
If the court of appeal was higher it would be its own court and if you look anywhere it will tell you the Supreme Court is the highest in victoria not the court of appeal
Agreed. That picture might throw people off side, but reading the section on the Court of Appeal should make it clear enough that the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal are in the same hierarchy.
A direct quote from the Legal Studies textbook "The Court of Appeal, which is a division or part of the Supreme Court..." (p.134)
Disapproving should be a valid answer.
Exactly. See this years exam is just full of amibiguities. I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned this was an odd exam which threw off even the brightest of students. Even my teacher stated said it was a strange exam considering 2011 was still pretty hard but much more straight foward.
Too true. The wording in this years exam was disgraceful. VCAA bombed out this year, just hope we don't lose marks because of their inability to construct an exam that asks clear questions
Guys even though its a "division or part", the Court of Appeal still imposes binding precedent on the Trial Division. That is in the Victorian Law Handbook. Yes, it is in the same jurisdiction and its the same court. I think this is also mentioned in the Justice and Outcomes textbook. Plus, an examiner mentioned this in the normal legal thread tonight.
-
I also think there was too much doubling-up on content from the course. That 2 mark question (whether or not it was distinguishing of disapproving) required you to write the same thing later on in the question about the ability of courts to make law. Also, I believe the vcat/court question allowed for material to be re-used in the mediation question. Also really annoyed that I studied trial by peers and community values as the same damn strength, and of course the paper makes me consider them to be different for 6 marks, certainly wasn't ready for that.
-
I also think there was too much doubling-up on content from the course. That 2 mark question (whether or not it was distinguishing of disapproving) required you to write the same thing later on in the question about the ability of courts to make law. Also, I believe the vcat/court question allowed for material to be re-used in the mediation question. Also really annoyed that I studied trial by peers and community values as the same damn strength, and of course the paper makes me consider them to be different for 6 marks, certainly wasn't ready for that.
the paper was very poorly written compared to last year
-
A direct quote from the Legal Studies textbook "The Court of Appeal, which is a division or part of the Supreme Court..." (p.134)
Disapproving should be a valid answer.
I agree mate
What i think might confuse people is that in the textbook i use (key concepts)
The hierarchy picture shows the court of appeal above the trial division but this is only to show that you can appeal from the trial division to teh court of appeal
However the differentiation only occurs within the court itself not in the entire hierarchy
If the court of appeal was higher it would be its own court and if you look anywhere it will tell you the Supreme Court is the highest in victoria not the court of appeal
Agreed. That picture might throw people off side, but reading the section on the Court of Appeal should make it clear enough that the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal are in the same hierarchy.
A direct quote from the Legal Studies textbook "The Court of Appeal, which is a division or part of the Supreme Court..." (p.134)
Disapproving should be a valid answer.
Exactly. See this years exam is just full of amibiguities. I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned this was an odd exam which threw off even the brightest of students. Even my teacher stated said it was a strange exam considering 2011 was still pretty hard but much more straight foward.
Too true. The wording in this years exam was disgraceful. VCAA bombed out this year, just hope we don't lose marks because of their inability to construct an exam that asks clear questions
Guys even though its a "division or part", the Court of Appeal still imposes binding precedent on the Trial Division. That is in the Victorian Law Handbook. Yes, it is in the same jurisdiction and its the same court. I think this is also mentioned in the Justice and Outcomes textbook. Plus, an examiner mentioned this in the normal legal thread tonight.
That's fair enough. However, would it be fair that VCAA took marks off people who wrote the Supreme Court could disapprove despite the book they prescribed saying that the Court of Appeal is a division or part of the Supreme Court? It'd be unfair that people suffer a loss of marks because VCAA done a poor job of wording their questions
-
Wouldn't distinguishing be the safe answer in this case?
-
Guys, trust me, the Court of Appeal is higher. I don't want to be cocky, but I know my stuff for legal, plus I have David Thomson as my legal teacher, an absolute genius who did a masters at Oxford and knows judges, the juries commissioner, everybody. Probably the best legal teacher around. And if you don't believe me, then believe this: http://www.swtafe.vic.edu.au/lrc/abs/publication/content/wcd00009/wcd00958.gif
-
Guys, trust me, the Court of Appeal is higher. I don't want to be cocky, but I know my stuff for legal, plus I have David Thomson as my legal teacher, an absolute genius who did a masters at Oxford and knows judges, the juries commissioner, everybody. Probably the best legal teacher around. And if you don't believe me, then believe this: http://www.swtafe.vic.edu.au/lrc/abs/publication/content/wcd00009/wcd00958.gif
Trust him, he's a DJ
-
A DJ?
-
What did you put for q1 Jourdy?
-
I put royal assent, for the simple reason there was no mentioning of a date of enactment for the law. Though it was published in the Gazette, a proclamation involves the announcement of a date for the law or parts of the law to be enacted at a particular time. If there is no date given, the act will commence 28 days after royal assent. Since there was no date and 'assent' was mentioned various times throughout the passage, I went with royal assent. I'm starting to worry a bit about it though. The start of the year was when I had glandular fever and missed out heaps of info...just hope it doesn't cost me my 70/70 on the exam....
-
I hope it doesn't cost me my 70! I put proclamation, I think your correct though. Some people have said they may accept both, I doubt it.
-
This is what I've got from my teacher,
As it is an notice that appeared in the gazette it is actually proclamation.
However, the question asks what the notice is referring to, which is royal assent.
It's a trick question, although I'm swinging more towards royal assent.
I will confirm this on Tuesday when I attend the assessors meeting and obtain the answers.
-
Guys, trust me, the Court of Appeal is higher. I don't want to be cocky, but I know my stuff for legal, plus I have David Thomson as my legal teacher, an absolute genius who did a masters at Oxford and knows judges, the juries commissioner, everybody. Probably the best legal teacher around. And if you don't believe me, then believe this: http://www.swtafe.vic.edu.au/lrc/abs/publication/content/wcd00009/wcd00958.gif
Fail whale.
"The Supreme Court of Victoria is the superior Court in the State. The Court is divided into two divisions - the Court of Appeal and the Trial Division."
So if they are divided how does the court of appeal just jump above the supreme court?
"The Supreme Court of Victoria is the superior court for the State of Victoria, Australia. It was founded in 1852, and is a superior court of common law and equity, with unlimited jurisdiction within the state. Those courts lying below it include the County Court of Victoria, the Magistrates' Court of Victoria and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (which is technically not a court, but serves a judicial function). Above it lies the High Court of Australia. This places it around the middle of the Australian court hierarchy."
-
Number of judges. Number wins. Same as the Full Bench is higher than the Full Court of the HCA even though it's exactly the same people. If the CoA wasn't higher you couldn't appeal there.
-
Number of judges. Number wins. Same as the Full Bench is higher than the Full Court of the HCA even though it's exactly the same people. If the CoA wasn't higher you couldn't appeal there.
disagree
-
Ok then question: when would you be able to disapprove a precedent cause no other court is on the same level?
Would love an answer
-
It doesn't matter whether the court is divided into separate areas or anything like that, the Court of Appeal of any court is of higher standing than its Trial Division. If you've put disapproving for that question, I'm sorry, but you've lost marks.
-
The question asked for what is one reason why they may not have to follow. This leaves it open to multiple possibilities I thought.
-
if you mentioned the US in the last question will you get marks deducted?
I just said however australia dosnt have a bill of rights like some other countries (e.g. the us)
will i get marks deducted ^
No, why would you? Its adding to your argument
I mentioned Canada as part of mine
-
Please tell me the first question was Royal Assent. If it wasn't, then FML
I think it was proclamation :(
How can it be proclamation, if there was no date set
It was clearly royal assent, unless it was the dodgiest trick question ever
-
What do you guys think will be the cut off for an A+? :)
58, harder than previous exams imo, harder than any exam I've done and I've done A LOT
-
Hey Guys,
Im getting really scared, it seems to me as though the first questions answer was proclamation, and I put royal assent.
Also in Q10- regarding how courts change laws, could you have talked about courts making consistent and fair laws and changing it through RODD?
Also, I talked about the courts being on the same level and therefore the supreme court (trial division) was not bound to follow the precedent?
-
i have a feeling the A+ may be low this year so much ambiguity
-
This is what I've got from my teacher,
As it is an notice that appeared in the gazette it is actually proclamation.
However, the question asks what the notice is referring to, which is royal assent.
It's a trick question, although I'm swinging more towards royal assent.
I will confirm this on Tuesday when I attend the assessors meeting and obtain the answers.
That had to be the trickiest first question ever? I hope they didn't fool me and its costs me an A+
-
ROYAL ASSENT FTW!
-
http://www.aifs.gov.au/acssa/pubs/sheets/rs1/figure1.png
http://www.serratorelegal.com.au/supreme_court_appeals.html
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=D1O2QnXBC5AC&pg=PA200&lpg=PA200&dq=court+hierarchy+in+victoria+court+of+appeal&source=bl&ots=Z1sx_exLPO&sig=9dK3aLE52t62TqIDDdOuw4SyWGs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MY2dUOjgPM-iiAe93IGIDg&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBjgU#v=onepage&q&f=false diagram on page 196
http://www.supremecourt.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/supremecourt/sco2_aboutus.html
No matter whether they are part of the same court technically, the man up there is right, the Court of Appeal is the Full Bench of the Supreme Court, Full Benches are higher than a single judge, which is why if a criminal case was ever heard in the original jurisdiction of the High Court (e.g. Treason), it could be appealed to the Full Bench of the High Court. Appeals can only go to higher courts, the Sentencing Amendment Act 2003 allows the Court of Appeal to create sentencing guidelines for other courts to follow. Under the Criminal Procedure Act 2009, people can be prevented from appealing if their appeal is extremely unlikely to be successful. The Court of Appeal is a higher court than the Trial Division, otherwise it wouldn't hear appeals.
-
What do you guys think will be the cut off for an A+? :)
58, harder than previous exams imo, harder than any exam I've done and I've done A LOT
I felt that the exam could have been easier if it was WORDED BETTER
-
http://www.aifs.gov.au/acssa/pubs/sheets/rs1/figure1.png
http://www.serratorelegal.com.au/supreme_court_appeals.html
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=D1O2QnXBC5AC&pg=PA200&lpg=PA200&dq=court+hierarchy+in+victoria+court+of+appeal&source=bl&ots=Z1sx_exLPO&sig=9dK3aLE52t62TqIDDdOuw4SyWGs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MY2dUOjgPM-iiAe93IGIDg&ved=0CFAQ6AEwBjgU#v=onepage&q&f=false diagram on page 196
http://www.supremecourt.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/supremecourt/sco2_aboutus.html
No matter whether they are part of the same court technically, the man up there is right, the Court of Appeal is the Full Bench of the Supreme Court, Full Benches are higher than a single judge, which is why if a criminal case was ever heard in the original jurisdiction of the High Court (e.g. Treason), it could be appealed to the Full Bench of the High Court. Appeals can only go to higher courts, the Sentencing Amendment Act 2003 allows the Court of Appeal to create sentencing guidelines for other courts to follow. Under the Criminal Procedure Act 2009, people can be prevented from appealing if their appeal is extremely unlikely to be successful. The Court of Appeal is a higher court than the Trial Division, otherwise it wouldn't hear appeals.
Well then could someone please answer me this: when would disapproving be used? there are no other courts on the same level in the same hierarchy
-
Disapproving is used when the precedent set was in the same court. For example if the Supreme Court set a precedent 3 years ago and heard a case of similar facts today, they could disapprove of that previous precedent.
-
Number of judges. Number wins. Same as the Full Bench is higher than the Full Court of the HCA even though it's exactly the same people. If the CoA wasn't higher you couldn't appeal there.
disagree
Well, that's nice - but it's still correct.
-
Disapproving is used when the precedent set was in the same court. For example if the Supreme Court set a precedent 3 years ago and heard a case of similar facts today, they could disapprove of that previous precedent.
Umm that is what i have been saying this whole time
the trial division and the court of appeal are both apart of the supreme court
Thankyou for proving what i have been saying all along
-
When talking about the Supreme Court, I am talking about the Trial Division. Put that same example in use for the County Court.
-
Take Grace v. Fraser (1982), a case appealed to the Trial Division of the Supreme Court on a point of law relating to the Motor Car Act. The decision of the judge in this case set a precedent (though it was abrogated very quickly). That case could be disapproved by future Supreme Court Trial Division judges if it wasn't abrogated.
-
Number of judges. Number wins. Same as the Full Bench is higher than the Full Court of the HCA even though it's exactly the same people. If the CoA wasn't higher you couldn't appeal there.
disagree
Well, that's nice - but it's still correct.
Wait so, Megan what's the answer haha? Does that mean disapproving won't be accepted?
-
What do you guys think will be the cut off for an A+? :)
58, harder than previous exams imo, harder than any exam I've done and I've done A LOT
I felt that the exam could have been easier if it was WORDED BETTER
amen.
-
Number of judges. Number wins. Same as the Full Bench is higher than the Full Court of the HCA even though it's exactly the same people. If the CoA wasn't higher you couldn't appeal there.
disagree
Well, that's nice - but it's still correct.
Wait so, Megan what's the answer haha? Does that mean disapproving won't be accepted?
I thought distinguishing and disapproving could both be accepted?
-
Number of judges. Number wins. Same as the Full Bench is higher than the Full Court of the HCA even though it's exactly the same people. If the CoA wasn't higher you couldn't appeal there.
disagree
Well, that's nice - but it's still correct.
Wait so, Megan what's the answer haha? Does that mean disapproving won't be accepted?
I thought distinguishing and disapproving could both be accepted?
I think what it will come down to is how well you explained your reasoning
-
What if you didn't actually say disapproving (if they accept that) but you explained what it was?
-
Number of judges. Number wins. Same as the Full Bench is higher than the Full Court of the HCA even though it's exactly the same people. If the CoA wasn't higher you couldn't appeal there.
disagree
Well, that's nice - but it's still correct.
Wait so, Megan what's the answer haha? Does that mean disapproving won't be accepted?
I absolutely can't predict what the Chief Assessor will decide, but we can say that disapproving should not be accepted. The TD could disapprove in its obiter, but it would still be bound to follow.
Logically, if the CoA doesn't bind the TD, then it can't overrule or reverse it either. See what I mean?
-
Number of judges. Number wins. Same as the Full Bench is higher than the Full Court of the HCA even though it's exactly the same people. If the CoA wasn't higher you couldn't appeal there.
disagree
Well, that's nice - but it's still correct.
Wait so, Megan what's the answer haha? Does that mean disapproving won't be accepted?
I absolutely can't predict what the Chief Assessor will decide, but we can say that disapproving should not be accepted. The TD could disapprove in its obiter, but it would still be bound to follow.
Logically, if the CoA doesn't bind the TD, then it can't overrule or reverse it either. See what I mean?
Megan: so why are we taught they are on the same level? so we have been taught wrong the whole year?
So megan, when will disapproving be used?
-
I absolutely can't predict what the Chief Assessor will decide, but we can say that disapproving should not be accepted. The TD could disapprove in its obiter, but it would still be bound to follow.
Logically, if the CoA doesn't bind the TD, then it can't overrule or reverse it either. See what I mean?
Ah k, yep thanks.
So megan, when will disapproving be used?
I believe disapproving's used in the same court.
-
Number of judges. Number wins. Same as the Full Bench is higher than the Full Court of the HCA even though it's exactly the same people. If the CoA wasn't higher you couldn't appeal there.
disagree
Well, that's nice - but it's still correct.
Wait so, Megan what's the answer haha? Does that mean disapproving won't be accepted?
I absolutely can't predict what the Chief Assessor will decide, but we can say that disapproving should not be accepted. The TD could disapprove in its obiter, but it would still be bound to follow.
Logically, if the CoA doesn't bind the TD, then it can't overrule or reverse it either. See what I mean?
Megan: so why are we taught they are on the same level? so we have been taught wrong the whole year?
So megan, when will disapproving be used?
I don't know, I'm so sorry :(
They are part of the same court, but they're not on the same level. Number always wins - just like within the HCA.
Disapproving is used in the obiter of a lower court when they are a bound by a precedent but wish to criticise it (or technically any court that disapproves and wants to criticise, even if they have the power to overrule but choose not to for the sake of consistency). Alternatively, if a TD precedent (like the Studded Belt Case) was argued before a later TD case, or a CoA precedent was argued before a later CoA case, etc, they would not be bound.
-
Also really annoyed that I studied trial by peers and community values as the same damn strength, and of course the paper makes me consider them to be different for 6 marks, certainly wasn't ready for that.
I did that too!!! So annoying. Didn't know what to write for the peers, what were you meant to write?
-
Also really annoyed that I studied trial by peers and community values as the same damn strength, and of course the paper makes me consider them to be different for 6 marks, certainly wasn't ready for that.
I did that too!!! So annoying. Didn't know what to write for the peers, what were you meant to write?
For the trialled by your peers i talked about how not all people would be because some people are ineligible, disqualified or excused from jury duty, for example - if a police officer was on trial they wouldn't be trialled by people in the same profession maybe
For the cross section one i said it may not be a true cross section because during the empanellment process each sides get challenges so they can determine who sits on teh jury for example they could try and get all men or all women which isn't a cross section of the community
-
Also really annoyed that I studied trial by peers and community values as the same damn strength, and of course the paper makes me consider them to be different for 6 marks, certainly wasn't ready for that.
I did that too!!! So annoying. Didn't know what to write for the peers, what were you meant to write?
For the trialled by your peers i talked about how not all people would be because some people are ineligible, disqualified or excused from jury duty, for example - if a police officer was on trial they wouldn't be trialled by people in the same profession maybe
For the cross section one i said it may not be a true cross section because during the empanellment process each sides get challenges so they can determine who sits on teh jury for example they could try and get all men or all women which isn't a cross section of the community
That would be the weakness of the jury system not representing a true cross-section of the community.
-
Basically disapproving could be used in a real life situation. The trial division would express disapproval of the precedent set in the court of appeal. However, all disapproving does is indicate to parties they might have success if the appeal the case (as the cannot change precedent by a higher court can) or indicate to parliament they should consider legislating to abolish the outdated/no longer fitting precedent. The judge in the trial division is still bound to follow that precedent,so imo disapproving is not an appropriate answer to the question
-
Also really annoyed that I studied trial by peers and community values as the same damn strength, and of course the paper makes me consider them to be different for 6 marks, certainly wasn't ready for that.
I did that too!!! So annoying. Didn't know what to write for the peers, what were you meant to write?
For the trialled by your peers i talked about how not all people would be because some people are ineligible, disqualified or excused from jury duty, for example - if a police officer was on trial they wouldn't be trialled by people in the same profession maybe
For the cross section one i said it may not be a true cross section because during the empanellment process each sides get challenges so they can determine who sits on teh jury for example they could try and get all men or all women which isn't a cross section of the community
That would be the weakness of the jury system not representing a true cross-section of the community.
Sorry i didn't make it clear
Those were by weaknesses and my answers for when we wouldn't be judged by our peers and when it may not be a true cross section of the community
Sorry guys
-
For that question I had a trial by one's peers means that the case is not assessed in legalistic terms but rather along community values and guidelines. However there may be conflicting views in society therefore a trial by jury does not represent the views of the majority of people etc
Then of course the strengths and weaknesses of the jury being a cross-section of the community due to liability etc
-
Also really annoyed that I studied trial by peers and community values as the same damn strength, and of course the paper makes me consider them to be different for 6 marks, certainly wasn't ready for that.
I did that too!!! So annoying. Didn't know what to write for the peers, what were you meant to write?
For the trialled by your peers i talked about how not all people would be because some people are ineligible, disqualified or excused from jury duty, for example - if a police officer was on trial they wouldn't be trialled by people in the same profession maybe
For the cross section one i said it may not be a true cross section because during the empanellment process each sides get challenges so they can determine who sits on teh jury for example they could try and get all men or all women which isn't a cross section of the community
That would be the weakness of the jury system not representing a true cross-section of the community.
For the trialled by your peers i talked about how the members of the jury are normal people just like the accused so they will make a decision that is fair.. They are ordinary people who are not prejudiced by past experiences with the operation of the legal system. They aren't bound by the rules of precedent and provide a fresh view of how the law should be applied to a set of circumstances. However, because they are ordinary people, they do not understand the rules of evidence and procedure. They are not trained and just expected to understand and appreciate the adversary system.. something like that.
And for cross section of the community, I said that they reflect the views and values of the community and can make a decision in accordance with the attitudes of the time. They act as a barometer of social norms, values and opinions.. and then, how it isn't always a cross section as they can be disqualified, ineligible, and excused, as well as the challenges allowing some people not to have to do their duty. So it wasn't truly a cross section, and many people's views are left out.
:)
-
??? Guys, WTF were you supposed to write about in the VLRC question?
Nobody in my class knew how to get 7 marks for that one.
-
??? Guys, WTF were you supposed to write about in the VLRC question?
Nobody in my class knew how to get 7 marks for that one.
Assess whether parliament could effectively represent the community in law-making by itself. I discussed how it delegates legislation and may therefore not be representative, how it can be representative effectively because members in the lower house are voted in by electorates of equal population, but it also makes decisions on party lines and may therefore not always represent the interests of the community. I spoke about how the VLRC consults experts to gain a qualified perspective and seeks submissions on discussion papers from the public, to gain knowledge on how the public feels about an issue. I spoke about what it did in relation to abortion and that parliament wouldn't have legislated on it if not for the VLRC as they already took 39 years after R v. Davidson (1969) to ask the VLRC for help. Therefore while parliament can be effective in representing the community, it is improved greatly with the help of the VLRC.
-
WHOA, I didn't know ANY of that. I don't think we covered the VLRC at all.
But I don't think the question asked about effectiveness of parliament, I thought it asked about the VLRC?
-
WHOA, I didn't know ANY of that. I don't think we covered the VLRC at all.
But I don't think the question asked about effectiveness of parliament, I thought it asked about the VLRC?
The question was along the lines of "Parliament wouldn't be able to effectively represent the views of the community without the help of the VLRC". Discuss.
-
I will get zero for that question, god dammit.
I'm screwed now >:(
-
I will get zero for that question, god dammit.
I'm screwed now >:(
You won't get zero. You would have actually had to have said absolutely nothing about either parliament or the VLRC.
-
I said the VLRC helps assist the parliament in finding areas of law that need to be fixed?
I also said that pressure groups could contact parl't without the VLRC through direct contacts but that might be wrong.
I misinterpreted the question :P :P :P
That's probably zero
-
Don't worry, questions can be answered in a number of ways. In this, you obviously had to talk about the role of the VLRC, however instead of then using parts from your parliament evaluation, you could have considered the effectiveness of informal methods for influencing change in the law, saying how individuals can use media, petitions, lobbying etc to directly engage with parliament and therefore allow parliament to make laws which represent the people. Basically you could have had any combination of VLRC's role, informal pressures and parliament's strengths/weaknesses which relate to representing the people (as long as you had a large focus on the VLRC at some point). I don't know this for sure, but that's my take on it.
-
Phew, that relieves me a bit. ::)
I focused on informal pressures and VLRC's role, so maybe I'll get 3 or 4 marks! Sweet, thanks dude.
-
its the way he said it... obviously
-
I think Megan said it best, one does not simply get 70/70 on the Legal Studies exam.
-
Im sure some people have before in the past
-
its the way he said it... obviously
Yeah the way he assumes he will otherwise get 100% is quite arrogant actually
How can one be so sure?
-
Hey guys,
I thought a lot of questions were very poorly worded. Despite this, I think it was an easy exam and I don't understand how VCAA haven't figured out how to maintain some consistency between years yet.
For the section 109 question, I confused myself halfway through my answer and said that although s.109 does restrict state parliament because the inconsistent part of their law will be invalid, it doesn't completely restrict them because they still have residual powers for which they are completely autonomous in their law-making. Do you think this is too far a stretch? Was the answer that it doesn't completely restrict them because ONLY the inconsistent part will be invalid, not the whole law?
-
Relax lads, remember Legal is over now, be freeeeee.
-
Hey guys,
I thought a lot of questions were very poorly worded. Despite this, I think it was an easy exam and I don't understand how VCAA haven't figured out how to maintain some consistency between years yet.
For the section 109 question, I confused myself halfway through my answer and said that although s.109 does restrict state parliament because the inconsistent part of their law will be invalid, it doesn't completely restrict them because they still have residual powers for which they are completely autonomous in their law-making. Do you think this is too far a stretch? Was the answer that it doesn't completely restrict them because ONLY the inconsistent part will be invalid, not the whole law?
I'm pretty sure you had to talk about how it restricted their concurrent powers, because if there is an inconsistency it becomes invalid. I'm just assuming that because part A of the questions was a 2 mark concurrent question (from memory).
-
Hey guys,
I thought a lot of questions were very poorly worded. Despite this, I think it was an easy exam and I don't understand how VCAA haven't figured out how to maintain some consistency between years yet.
For the section 109 question, I confused myself halfway through my answer and said that although s.109 does restrict state parliament because the inconsistent part of their law will be invalid, it doesn't completely restrict them because they still have residual powers for which they are completely autonomous in their law-making. Do you think this is too far a stretch? Was the answer that it doesn't completely restrict them because ONLY the inconsistent part will be invalid, not the whole law?
I'm pretty sure you had to talk about how it restricted their concurrent powers, because if there is an inconsistency it becomes invalid. I'm just assuming that because part A of the questions was a 2 mark concurrent question (from memory).
S.109 only applies to concurrent powers, I think residual and exclusive powers were irrelevant to this question.
-
Hey guys,
I thought a lot of questions were very poorly worded. Despite this, I think it was an easy exam and I don't understand how VCAA haven't figured out how to maintain some consistency between years yet.
For the section 109 question, I confused myself halfway through my answer and said that although s.109 does restrict state parliament because the inconsistent part of their law will be invalid, it doesn't completely restrict them because they still have residual powers for which they are completely autonomous in their law-making. Do you think this is too far a stretch? Was the answer that it doesn't completely restrict them because ONLY the inconsistent part will be invalid, not the whole law?
I'm pretty sure you had to talk about how it restricted their concurrent powers, because if there is an inconsistency it becomes invalid. I'm just assuming that because part A of the questions was a 2 mark concurrent question (from memory).
S.109 only applies to concurrent powers, I think residual and exclusive powers were irrelevant to this question.
While s.109 only applies to concurrent powers, the question was along the lines of to what extent does s.109 restrict law-making powers of the States and for being the amount of marks it was (I think 7) you would need to have mentioned that although 109 constricts the States and Cmth legislating on the same areas, the States are able to make legislation in residual areas that the Commonwealth cannot do so therefore, it is not completely restricted as a law maker.
-
I avoided mentioning residual powers and (after explaining what s109 does) just said that states were not completely restricted due to being able to make laws which comply with commonwealth law on concurrent matters and how they can make laws if the commonwealth hasn't already covered something in a concurrent area. Also pretty sure the question was only around 4 marks
-
Hey guys,
I thought a lot of questions were very poorly worded. Despite this, I think it was an easy exam and I don't understand how VCAA haven't figured out how to maintain some consistency between years yet.
For the section 109 question, I confused myself halfway through my answer and said that although s.109 does restrict state parliament because the inconsistent part of their law will be invalid, it doesn't completely restrict them because they still have residual powers for which they are completely autonomous in their law-making. Do you think this is too far a stretch? Was the answer that it doesn't completely restrict them because ONLY the inconsistent part will be invalid, not the whole law?
I'm pretty sure you had to talk about how it restricted their concurrent powers, because if there is an inconsistency it becomes invalid. I'm just assuming that because part A of the questions was a 2 mark concurrent question (from memory).
S.109 only applies to concurrent powers, I think residual and exclusive powers were irrelevant to this question.
While s.109 only applies to concurrent powers, the question was along the lines of to what extent does s.109 restrict law-making powers of the States and for being the amount of marks it was (I think 7) you would need to have mentioned that although 109 constricts the States and Cmth legislating on the same areas, the States are able to make legislation in residual areas that the Commonwealth cannot do so therefore, it is not completely restricted as a law maker.
This is pretty much what i said
-
Hey guys,
I thought a lot of questions were very poorly worded. Despite this, I think it was an easy exam and I don't understand how VCAA haven't figured out how to maintain some consistency between years yet.
For the section 109 question, I confused myself halfway through my answer and said that although s.109 does restrict state parliament because the inconsistent part of their law will be invalid, it doesn't completely restrict them because they still have residual powers for which they are completely autonomous in their law-making. Do you think this is too far a stretch? Was the answer that it doesn't completely restrict them because ONLY the inconsistent part will be invalid, not the whole law?
I'm pretty sure you had to talk about how it restricted their concurrent powers, because if there is an inconsistency it becomes invalid. I'm just assuming that because part A of the questions was a 2 mark concurrent question (from memory).
S.109 only applies to concurrent powers, I think residual and exclusive powers were irrelevant to this question.
While s.109 only applies to concurrent powers, the question was along the lines of to what extent does s.109 restrict law-making powers of the States and for being the amount of marks it was (I think 7) you would need to have mentioned that although 109 constricts the States and Cmth legislating on the same areas, the States are able to make legislation in residual areas that the Commonwealth cannot do so therefore, it is not completely restricted as a law maker.
If the question was "the states are completely restricted as a law maker, discuss" then it would be necessary to mention residual powers to prove that the states are not restricted. However, the question was something like "S.109 acts as a restriction on the states law making, discuss". This only requires that you explain why S.109 is a restriction on the states and does not necessitate the mention of residual powers as they have nothing to do with S.109 or the question itself. And yeah, it was 4 marks.
-
Hey guys,
I thought a lot of questions were very poorly worded. Despite this, I think it was an easy exam and I don't understand how VCAA haven't figured out how to maintain some consistency between years yet.
For the section 109 question, I confused myself halfway through my answer and said that although s.109 does restrict state parliament because the inconsistent part of their law will be invalid, it doesn't completely restrict them because they still have residual powers for which they are completely autonomous in their law-making. Do you think this is too far a stretch? Was the answer that it doesn't completely restrict them because ONLY the inconsistent part will be invalid, not the whole law?
I'm pretty sure you had to talk about how it restricted their concurrent powers, because if there is an inconsistency it becomes invalid. I'm just assuming that because part A of the questions was a 2 mark concurrent question (from memory).
S.109 only applies to concurrent powers, I think residual and exclusive powers were irrelevant to this question.
While s.109 only applies to concurrent powers, the question was along the lines of to what extent does s.109 restrict law-making powers of the States and for being the amount of marks it was (I think 7) you would need to have mentioned that although 109 constricts the States and Cmth legislating on the same areas, the States are able to make legislation in residual areas that the Commonwealth cannot do so therefore, it is not completely restricted as a law maker.
If the question was "the states are completely restricted as a law maker, discuss" then it would be necessary to mention residual powers to prove that the states are not restricted. However, the question was something like "S.109 acts as a restriction on the states law making, discuss". This only requires that you explain why S.109 is a restriction on the states and does not necessitate the mention of residual powers as they have nothing to do with S.109 or the question itself. And yeah, it was 4 marks.
Yeah you just needed to talk about concurrent powers
But the question said to what extent and for 4 marks i was kinda stuck on what to write
So I tacked on a bit at the end that said that though they are restricted tehy can still make these inconsistent laws because they only become invalid if the commonwealth questions the states legislation - don't know if its write but it said what extent so i thought you should put something that was looking at the other side :)
-
Hey guys,
I thought a lot of questions were very poorly worded. Despite this, I think it was an easy exam and I don't understand how VCAA haven't figured out how to maintain some consistency between years yet.
For the section 109 question, I confused myself halfway through my answer and said that although s.109 does restrict state parliament because the inconsistent part of their law will be invalid, it doesn't completely restrict them because they still have residual powers for which they are completely autonomous in their law-making. Do you think this is too far a stretch? Was the answer that it doesn't completely restrict them because ONLY the inconsistent part will be invalid, not the whole law?
I'm pretty sure you had to talk about how it restricted their concurrent powers, because if there is an inconsistency it becomes invalid. I'm just assuming that because part A of the questions was a 2 mark concurrent question (from memory).
S.109 only applies to concurrent powers, I think residual and exclusive powers were irrelevant to this question.
While s.109 only applies to concurrent powers, the question was along the lines of to what extent does s.109 restrict law-making powers of the States and for being the amount of marks it was (I think 7) you would need to have mentioned that although 109 constricts the States and Cmth legislating on the same areas, the States are able to make legislation in residual areas that the Commonwealth cannot do so therefore, it is not completely restricted as a law maker.
If the question was "the states are completely restricted as a law maker, discuss" then it would be necessary to mention residual powers to prove that the states are not restricted. However, the question was something like "S.109 acts as a restriction on the states law making, discuss". This only requires that you explain why S.109 is a restriction on the states and does not necessitate the mention of residual powers as they have nothing to do with S.109 or the question itself. And yeah, it was 4 marks.
Yeah you just needed to talk about concurrent powers
But the question said to what extent and for 4 marks i was kinda stuck on what to write
So I tacked on a bit at the end that said that though they are restricted tehy can still make these inconsistent laws because they only become invalid if the commonwealth questions the states legislation - don't know if its write but it said what extent so i thought you should put something that was looking at the other side :)
So did most of you argue that they completely restrict their concurrent powers? Because as you said, the question said "to what extent" which is why i thought they were looking for both sides of the argument.
I walked out of the room thinking that it was an easy exam, but looking back, there were a lot of questions that I'm really unsure about. I thought for sure the A+ range would go up to like a 65-70 but now i'm not so sure anymore! Hopefully it stays at 60 so we can all scrape through.. :P
-
Hey guys,
I thought a lot of questions were very poorly worded. Despite this, I think it was an easy exam and I don't understand how VCAA haven't figured out how to maintain some consistency between years yet.
For the section 109 question, I confused myself halfway through my answer and said that although s.109 does restrict state parliament because the inconsistent part of their law will be invalid, it doesn't completely restrict them because they still have residual powers for which they are completely autonomous in their law-making. Do you think this is too far a stretch? Was the answer that it doesn't completely restrict them because ONLY the inconsistent part will be invalid, not the whole law?
I'm pretty sure you had to talk about how it restricted their concurrent powers, because if there is an inconsistency it becomes invalid. I'm just assuming that because part A of the questions was a 2 mark concurrent question (from memory).
S.109 only applies to concurrent powers, I think residual and exclusive powers were irrelevant to this question.
While s.109 only applies to concurrent powers, the question was along the lines of to what extent does s.109 restrict law-making powers of the States and for being the amount of marks it was (I think 7) you would need to have mentioned that although 109 constricts the States and Cmth legislating on the same areas, the States are able to make legislation in residual areas that the Commonwealth cannot do so therefore, it is not completely restricted as a law maker.
If the question was "the states are completely restricted as a law maker, discuss" then it would be necessary to mention residual powers to prove that the states are not restricted. However, the question was something like "S.109 acts as a restriction on the states law making, discuss". This only requires that you explain why S.109 is a restriction on the states and does not necessitate the mention of residual powers as they have nothing to do with S.109 or the question itself. And yeah, it was 4 marks.
Yeah you just needed to talk about concurrent powers
But the question said to what extent and for 4 marks i was kinda stuck on what to write
So I tacked on a bit at the end that said that though they are restricted tehy can still make these inconsistent laws because they only become invalid if the commonwealth questions the states legislation - don't know if its write but it said what extent so i thought you should put something that was looking at the other side :)
So did most of you argue that they completely restrict their concurrent powers? Because as you said, the question said "to what extent" which is why i thought they were looking for both sides of the argument.
I walked out of the room thinking that it was an easy exam, but looking back, there were a lot of questions that I'm really unsure about. I thought for sure the A+ range would go up to like a 65-70 but now i'm not so sure anymore! Hopefully it stays at 60 so we can all scrape through.. :P
Yeah cause it said to what extent i thought we had to look at both sides. Thats why i talk about yeah they can still make the law if they wish and it stays valid until commonwealth challenges the legislation in the high court - thus not totally restricted. Don't knwo if they will accept this though.
I'm with you about the exam was feeling really good whilst doing it but now thinking about it im not quite sure. :(
I'm assuming the A+ cutoof will be similar to last years - really need that A+
-
Hey guys,
I thought a lot of questions were very poorly worded. Despite this, I think it was an easy exam and I don't understand how VCAA haven't figured out how to maintain some consistency between years yet.
For the section 109 question, I confused myself halfway through my answer and said that although s.109 does restrict state parliament because the inconsistent part of their law will be invalid, it doesn't completely restrict them because they still have residual powers for which they are completely autonomous in their law-making. Do you think this is too far a stretch? Was the answer that it doesn't completely restrict them because ONLY the inconsistent part will be invalid, not the whole law?
I'm pretty sure you had to talk about how it restricted their concurrent powers, because if there is an inconsistency it becomes invalid. I'm just assuming that because part A of the questions was a 2 mark concurrent question (from memory).
S.109 only applies to concurrent powers, I think residual and exclusive powers were irrelevant to this question.
While s.109 only applies to concurrent powers, the question was along the lines of to what extent does s.109 restrict law-making powers of the States and for being the amount of marks it was (I think 7) you would need to have mentioned that although 109 constricts the States and Cmth legislating on the same areas, the States are able to make legislation in residual areas that the Commonwealth cannot do so therefore, it is not completely restricted as a law maker.
The amount of marks was actually 4 for this question. You don't HAVE to mention residual powers, the question is not specifically asking for that and it is kind of irrelevant to the question really. Its asking for the impact of s.109, residual powers have nothing to do with section 109.
That question kind of shocked me as in all the practise exams i did, i didn't come across a question along those lines. There were a number of questions that were in that same category in the exam, such as the first one and the VLRC one.
I was expecting there to be more evaluations, a referendum question and a comparison in constitutional approaches. These were in the the exam but they were not as prominent as i thought they would be
-
Hey guys,
I thought a lot of questions were very poorly worded. Despite this, I think it was an easy exam and I don't understand how VCAA haven't figured out how to maintain some consistency between years yet.
For the section 109 question, I confused myself halfway through my answer and said that although s.109 does restrict state parliament because the inconsistent part of their law will be invalid, it doesn't completely restrict them because they still have residual powers for which they are completely autonomous in their law-making. Do you think this is too far a stretch? Was the answer that it doesn't completely restrict them because ONLY the inconsistent part will be invalid, not the whole law?
I'm pretty sure you had to talk about how it restricted their concurrent powers, because if there is an inconsistency it becomes invalid. I'm just assuming that because part A of the questions was a 2 mark concurrent question (from memory).
S.109 only applies to concurrent powers, I think residual and exclusive powers were irrelevant to this question.
While s.109 only applies to concurrent powers, the question was along the lines of to what extent does s.109 restrict law-making powers of the States and for being the amount of marks it was (I think 7) you would need to have mentioned that although 109 constricts the States and Cmth legislating on the same areas, the States are able to make legislation in residual areas that the Commonwealth cannot do so therefore, it is not completely restricted as a law maker.
The amount of marks was actually 4 for this question. You don't HAVE to mention residual powers, the question is not specifically asking for that and it is kind of irrelevant to the question really. Its asking for the impact of s.109, residual powers have nothing to do with section 109.
That question kind of shocked me as in all the practise exams i did, i didn't come across a question along those lines. There were a number of questions that were in that same category in the exam, such as the first one and the VLRC one.
I was expecting there to be more evaluations, a referendum question and a comparison in constitutional approaches. These were in the the exam but they were not as prominent as i thought they would be
I'm hoping for like 58 or so now. I keep seeing these posts and deducting marks from my score. LOL
-
Hey guys,
I thought a lot of questions were very poorly worded. Despite this, I think it was an easy exam and I don't understand how VCAA haven't figured out how to maintain some consistency between years yet.
For the section 109 question, I confused myself halfway through my answer and said that although s.109 does restrict state parliament because the inconsistent part of their law will be invalid, it doesn't completely restrict them because they still have residual powers for which they are completely autonomous in their law-making. Do you think this is too far a stretch? Was the answer that it doesn't completely restrict them because ONLY the inconsistent part will be invalid, not the whole law?
I'm pretty sure you had to talk about how it restricted their concurrent powers, because if there is an inconsistency it becomes invalid. I'm just assuming that because part A of the questions was a 2 mark concurrent question (from memory).
S.109 only applies to concurrent powers, I think residual and exclusive powers were irrelevant to this question.
While s.109 only applies to concurrent powers, the question was along the lines of to what extent does s.109 restrict law-making powers of the States and for being the amount of marks it was (I think 7) you would need to have mentioned that although 109 constricts the States and Cmth legislating on the same areas, the States are able to make legislation in residual areas that the Commonwealth cannot do so therefore, it is not completely restricted as a law maker.
The amount of marks was actually 4 for this question. You don't HAVE to mention residual powers, the question is not specifically asking for that and it is kind of irrelevant to the question really. Its asking for the impact of s.109, residual powers have nothing to do with section 109.
That question kind of shocked me as in all the practise exams i did, i didn't come across a question along those lines. There were a number of questions that were in that same category in the exam, such as the first one and the VLRC one.
I was expecting there to be more evaluations, a referendum question and a comparison in constitutional approaches. These were in the the exam but they were not as prominent as i thought they would be
I'm hoping for like 58 or so now. I keep seeing these posts and deducting marks from my score. LOL
Dude don't worry about it
For the longer questions even if people on here have different answers from yours doesn't mean you still want get any marks
I'm sure your whole answer wasn't incorrect :)
-
Let's end this pointless argument now. Everyone just revel in the fact that the year is over (for Legal Studies anyway)! You've given it your all, now let the results speak for themselves and be happy with how you feel you engaged with the subject, not the 2 digit number that you get on December 17th.
-
And don't worry everyone, whether you put proclamation or royal assent, it turns out you were right.
-
And don't worry everyone, whether you put proclamation or royal assent, it turns out you were right.
How do you know this?
-
And don't worry everyone, whether you put proclamation or royal assent, it turns out you were right.
How do you know this?
He posted somewhere earlier he went to the Assessors meeting. I don't know how though if he is a student? I think he wouldve meant his teacher is an assessor and went to the meeting. I had a feeling they'd except both though, cos it was an extremely poor written question
-
And don't worry everyone, whether you put proclamation or royal assent, it turns out you were right.
How do you know this?
He posted somewhere earlier he went to the Assessors meeting. I don't know how though if he is a student? I think he wouldve meant his teacher is an assessor and went to the meeting. I had a feeling they'd except both though, cos it was an extremely poor written question
The latter would be correct.
-
And don't worry everyone, whether you put proclamation or royal assent, it turns out you were right.
How do you know this?
He posted somewhere earlier he went to the Assessors meeting. I don't know how though if he is a student? I think he wouldve meant his teacher is an assessor and went to the meeting. I had a feeling they'd except both though, cos it was an extremely poor written question
The latter would be correct.
hahaha thats reassuring ;D ;D
-
I cannot understand why most think it was such a fantastic exam, although so many questions in this exam were so broad and ambiguous.
I really hope that you could use either Royal Assent or Proclamation.
I'm also afraid that I may have lost marks on the Court of Appeal and Trial Division question where I mentioned 'Reversing', However my legal teacher believes that it is exclusive to Distinguishing and Disapproving. Lies I tell her, LIES!
:-\