ATAR Notes: Forum
Archived Discussion => Business Studies => 2013 => Exam Discussion => Victoria => Legal Studies => Topic started by: lloyd18 on November 12, 2013, 09:03:46 pm
-
i have a copy of the exam and i did legal last year getting a 50, so im happy to answer any questions or clarify any uncertain aspects of the exam :)
just ask a question and ill reply ASAP
-
Question 1b!
-
To get 3 marks on the question on overriding the Supreme Court what did you have to state?
I think I said it was incorrect due to abrogation then went into a bit of detail on that and used an example.
-
Question 1b!
lots of people got this question confused and thats understandable because the past few years this has been an aera of study that has been shown to trouble students.
the answer is that court of appeal doesnt have to follow their own decsions because they are obv on the same level of the court hierarchy, and thus there is no binding precedent, only persuasive, hence the court does not have to follow previous precdents ste by the court of appeal
-
lots of people got this question confused and thats understandable because the past few years this has been an aera of study that has been shown to trouble students.
the answer is that court of appeal doesnt have to follow their own decsions because they are obv on the same level of the court hierarchy, and thus there is no binding precedent, only persuasive, hence the court does not have to follow previous precdents ste by the court of appeal
So absolutely no marks for saying distinguishing the facts?
-
To get 3 marks on the question on overriding the Supreme Court what did you have to state?
I think I said it was incorrect due to abrogation then went into a bit of detail on that and used an example.
one mark stating that it is incorrect, then you would have to say why, i would say because the parliament is the supreme law making body and can abrogate law made by courts, besides high court, this is because parliament created the courts through legislation creating their jurisdiction and thus has control, whereas the high court was established by the constitution.\
essentially saying its incorrect, and saying parliament as the supreme law making body can abrogate common law will get you three marks
-
To get 3 marks on the question on overriding the Supreme Court what did you have to state?
I think I said it was incorrect due to abrogation then went into a bit of detail on that and used an example.
btw
according to what you said you shoudl get the three
-
Ok sweet, thank you!
Personally what did you think of the paper compared to previous years?
-
So absolutely no marks for saying distinguishing the facts?
i do not believe so because if you think about it logically the court of appeal wouldnt have to distinguish between a precedent, because they are not bound, they do not have to follow the precdent so there is no reason for the judge to show the material facts are disimilar. do you get me?
-
Oh and also, the question that covers impact of referendum and high court interpretations 8 marks
-
i have a copy of the exam and i did legal last year getting a 50, so im happy to answer any questions or clarify any uncertain aspects of the exam :)
just ask a question and ill reply ASAP
Any chance you could upload your copy of the exam? Am really keen to see what the exam was like.
-
i do not believe so because if you think about it logically the court of appeal wouldnt have to distinguish between a precedent, because they are not bound, they do not have to follow the precdent so there is no reason for the judge to show the material facts are disimilar. do you get me?
Yeah makes sense, cheers
-
Ok sweet, thank you!
Personally what did you think of the paper compared to previous years?
yeh i would of loved to have it, however because it was pretty easy, it will make it harder to get the really high marks because any silly mistake may lose you a few points
-
Oh and also, the question that covers impact of referendum and high court interpretations 8 marks
basically two marks for one strength and one weakness as it says analyze the impact and two marks for an example, that is 4 marks so do the same for high court and theres your 8
i would use 1967 aborigines and for high court interpretation i would use Brislans case
basically state how both impacted, eg aborigines- it shifted division of powers to the comm allowing them to move into an area of law that was a residual power and legislate in regards to aboriginals.
does that help?
-
basically two marks for one strength and one weakness as it says analyze the impact and two marks for an example, that is 4 marks so do the same for high court and theres your 8
i would use 1967 aborigines and for high court interpretation i would use Brislans case
basically state how both impacted, eg aborigines- it shifted division of powers to the comm allowing them to move into an area of law that was a residual power and legislate in regards to aboriginals.
does that help?
I did that. I did read the analyse part of it however what exactly were you supposed to analyse? Example?
-
basically two marks for one strength and one weakness as it says analyze the impact and two marks for an example, that is 4 marks so do the same for high court and theres your 8
i would use 1967 aborigines and for high court interpretation i would use Brislans case
basically state how both impacted, eg aborigines- it shifted division of powers to the comm allowing them to move into an area of law that was a residual power and legislate in regards to aboriginals.
does that help?
Wow. I never knew analyse meant strengths and weaknesses. I basically just did Dams case: list basic facts of the case; state how division of power changed and that is all.
-
i have a copy of the exam and i did legal last year getting a 50, so im happy to answer any questions or clarify any uncertain aspects of the exam :)
just ask a question and ill reply ASAP
Hey mate. Are you able to let me know what the two 8 markers and one 7 marker on the exam were? I seem to have forgotten doing them altogether! Cheers
-
one mark stating that it is incorrect, then you would have to say why, i would say because the parliament is the supreme law making body and can abrogate law made by courts, besides high court, this is because parliament created the courts through legislation creating their jurisdiction and thus has control, whereas the high court was established by the constitution.\
essentially saying its incorrect, and saying parliament as the supreme law making body can abrogate common law will get you three marks
i said it was somewhat correct. First i explained why it was incorrect saying pretty much what you said above. But i said the parliament cannot overall the actual decision in that case. The decision made by the supreme court in that case was binding and the separation of power prevents the parliament from changing actual court decision. However it can be overridden in that it will not have to be followed in future cases. It is future cases that the parliament has control over. Is this okay?
-
Any chance you could upload your copy of the exam? Am really keen to see what the exam was like.
cant now but ill write the questions and the associated marks.
(1) 2 marks- other than doctrine of precedent whats another reason for court hierarchy?
(b)2 marks- outline why the supreme court(court of appeal) does not have to follow its previous decisions?
(2) 3 marks- explain the role of the senate in the law- making process?
(3) 2 marks- describe one restriction that is imposed by the constitution on the law making powers of the state parliaments.
(b) 4 marks- identify two types of law making powers of the state parliaments, provide an example of each.
(4) 3 marks- sophie has civil dispute with neighbour. she is seeking $500,000 in damages. Sophie thinks that
.her trial will be heard in the magistrates' court
. she will have a trial heard by a judge and a jury of 12 people
. she can go to the VLRC to seek legal advice
outline why each statement is incorrect.
(5) 2 marks- provide one reason why a court may need to interpret statute
(b) 3 marks- "parliament cannot make laws that override decisions made by the supreme court of victoria"-is this correct or incorrect?
(6) 4 marks- describe two dispute resolution methods that were used by the courts
(7) 4 marks- one similarity and one difference between aus approach and a country of your choices protection of rights
(8) 5 marks- "commital hearings are comlplicated and serve no useful purpose"- discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with this statement.
(9)5 marks- "trial by jury is inefficient and outdated"- discuss two possible reforms to the jury system
(10) 6 marks- evaluate the effectiveness of two methods that are used by individuals or groups to influence a change in the law
(11)7 marks- vcat is always better option to resolve civil disputes than courts because it is less expensive and quicker- do you agree with this statement?
(12)using one referendum and one higgh court case, analyse the impact of referendum and the high courts interpretation of the commonwealth constitution on the division of law making powers.
(13)discuss the extent to which the adversarial system achieves one of the elements of an effective legal system. in your answer, compare two features of adversary with inquisitorial system.
-
cant now but ill write the questions and the associated marks.
(1) 2 marks- other than doctrine of precedent whats another reason for court hierarchy?
(b)2 marks- outline why the supreme court(court of appeal) does not have to follow its previous decisions?
(2) 3 marks- explain the role of the senate in the law- making process?
(3) 2 marks- describe one restriction that is imposed by the constitution on the law making powers of the state parliaments.
(b) 4 marks- identify two types of law making powers of the state parliaments, provide an example of each.
(4) 3 marks- sophie has civil dispute with neighbour. she is seeking $500,000 in damages. Sophie thinks that
.her trial will be heard in the magistrates' court
. she will have a trial heard by a judge and a jury of 12 people
. she can go to the VLRC to seek legal advice
outline why each statement is incorrect.
(5) 2 marks- provide one reason why a court may need to interpret statute
(b) 3 marks- "parliament cannot make laws that override decisions made by the supreme court of victoria"-is this correct or incorrect?
(6) 4 marks- describe two dispute resolution methods that were used by the courts
(7) 4 marks- one similarity and one difference between aus approach and a country of your choices protection of rights
(8) 5 marks- "commital hearings are comlplicated and serve no useful purpose"- discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with this statement.
(9)5 marks- "trial by jury is inefficient and outdated"- discuss two possible reforms to the jury system
(10) 6 marks- evaluate the effectiveness of two methods that are used by individuals or groups to influence a change in the law
(11)7 marks- vcat is always better option to resolve civil disputes than courts because it is less expensive and quicker- do you agree with this statement?
(12)using one referendum and one higgh court case, analyse the impact of referendum and the high courts interpretation of the commonwealth constitution on the division of law making powers.
(13)discuss the extent to which the adversarial system achieves one of the elements of an effective legal system. in your answer, compare two features of adversary with inquisitorial system.
You are such a legend!
-
If you can't do that can you please just type out the last question so we can have a discussion about it? Thanks a million!
done i replied to sam all the questions of the exam
-
i said it was somewhat correct. First i explained why it was incorrect saying pretty much what you said above. But i said the parliament cannot overall the actual decision in that case. The decision made by the supreme court in that case was binding and the separation of power prevents the parliament from changing actual court decision. However it can be overridden in that it will not have to be followed in future cases. It is future cases that the parliament has control over. Is this okay?
besides the high court, the parliament can actually eradicate the entire precedent.
i dont think it is possible to justify that it was correct. Good luck though :)
-
I did that. I did read the analyse part of it however what exactly were you supposed to analyse? Example?
basically- the analysis would conssit with a strength and weakness for each. eg referendums a strength is that due to the double majority provision a proposal will only be successful if it has widespread support from the community. However a weakness is that it is costly eg 1999 refernda cost around 66 million.
in addition to what you said that would get the marks the mark allocation would go as such: example two marks and strength and weakness- two marks x2
-
done i replied to sam all the questions of the exam
Champ, thank you!
-
Wow. I never knew analyse meant strengths and weaknesses. I basically just did Dams case: list basic facts of the case; state how division of power changed and that is all.
analyse means to critically examine which entails both strength and weaknesses.
context is seen as pretty unecessary but will display your knowledge.
-
besides the high court, the parliament can actually eradicate the entire precedent.
i dont think it is possible to justify that it was correct. Good luck though :)
My rational was that it cannot change the outcome of that particular case but how the decision is judged in future cases. But if not then yeah fair enough :D
-
My rational was that it cannot change the outcome of that particular case but how the decision is judged in future cases. But if not then yeah fair enough :D
yeh you are correct it cannot change the decision, however all it was really focusing on was the precdent that being the decision.
who cares its a couple marks you can still get a very high mark
good luck :)
-
yeh you are correct it cannot change the decision, however all it was really focusing on was the precdent that being the decision.
who cares its a couple marks you can still get a very high mark
good luck :)
If you don't mind me asking, what did you get on your sacs/exams to achieve your 50
-
If you don't mind me asking, what did you get on your sacs/exams to achieve your 50
sacs i got 3 sacs 100% and the other three 95%^
and in the exam i dont actually know but i felt that i didnt get any wrong but i know the past few years to get a 50 you need at 69/70 at the lowest.
-
What do you reckon you will need for a 40 considering the relatively easy paper, at least a 65/70?
-
What do you reckon you will need for a 40 considering the relatively easy paper, at least a 65/70?
nah man thats prob will get 43/45
if your sacs are pretty good than probs 62 around
-
yeh you are correct it cannot change the decision, however all it was really focusing on was the precdent that being the decision.
who cares its a couple marks you can still get a very high mark
good luck :)
Yeah thats true. Thank you!
-
basically- the analysis would conssit with a strength and weakness for each. eg referendums a strength is that due to the double majority provision a proposal will only be successful if it has widespread support from the community. However a weakness is that it is costly eg 1999 refernda cost around 66 million.
in addition to what you said that would get the marks the mark allocation would go as such: example two marks and strength and weakness- two marks x2
wait, so the question was using one referendum and one high court case, analyse the impact of referendum and the high courts interpretation of the commonwealth constitution on the division of law making powers
the question is not asking us to analyse the referendum process or h.c interpretation... it is asking us to analyse the impact of the referendum process on the division of law making power in the cases, therefore youre analyzing the cases in respect to the referendum not stating the strengths and weaknesses of a referendum.... even in respect to the cases, all you have to say is how it chnages division of law making powers in respect to the cases..
Idk, i read that question very carefull and technically that is what it's asking
-
wait, so the question was using one referendum and one high court case, analyse the impact of referendum and the high courts interpretation of the commonwealth constitution on the division of law making powers
the question is not asking us to analyse the referendum process or h.c interpretation... it is asking us to analyse the impact of the referendum process on the division of law making power in the cases, therefore youre analyzing the cases in respect to the referendum not stating the strengths and weaknesses of a referendum.... even in respect to the cases, all you have to say is how it chnages division of law making powers in respect to the cases..
Idk, i read that question very carefull and technically that is what it's asking
Same! I spent a couple of lines explaining facts of the case/referenda but a majority of my decision was on the impact part. Don't think i even explained the process :/ just explained in general terms that referendums were the only way that the constitution could actually be altered and some referendums (ie. indigenous referenda) resulted in the shift of law-making power and what was meant by the changing the division of law-making power.
-
wait, so the question was using one referendum and one high court case, analyse the impact of referendum and the high courts interpretation of the commonwealth constitution on the division of law making powers
the question is not asking us to analyse the referendum process or h.c interpretation... it is asking us to analyse the impact of the referendum process on the division of law making power in the cases, therefore youre analyzing the cases in respect to the referendum not stating the strengths and weaknesses of a referendum.... even in respect to the cases, all you have to say is how it chnages division of law making powers in respect to the cases..
Idk, i read that question very carefull and technically that is what it's asking
thanks for that yes i agree completely, so for example like i said before an anlysis for a referendum like the 1967 aborigines one would be like it shifted the division of law-making powers form the state to comm parliaments by allowing them to move into an area of residual power and legislate in regards to aboriginal people.
For high court for brislans case- the high court interpreted the phrase 'other like services' to include broadcasting to wireless sets thus allowing the com parliament to be able to legislate in regards to postal, telegraphic, telephonic and other like services including boradcasting wireless sets, thus shifting the division of law making powers to the comm parliment by allowing them to enter into an area of law that was residual.
impact was a shift of division of law making powers form states to commonwealth parliament.
-
wait, so the question was using one referendum and one high court case, analyse the impact of referendum and the high courts interpretation of the commonwealth constitution on the division of law making powers
the question is not asking us to analyse the referendum process or h.c interpretation... it is asking us to analyse the impact of the referendum process on the division of law making power in the cases, therefore youre analyzing the cases in respect to the referendum not stating the strengths and weaknesses of a referendum.... even in respect to the cases, all you have to say is how it chnages division of law making powers in respect to the cases..
Idk, i read that question very carefull and technically that is what it's asking
I read the question about 5 times in the exam and that's what I thought also
-
wait, so the question was using one referendum and one high court case, analyse the impact of referendum and the high courts interpretation of the commonwealth constitution on the division of law making powers
the question is not asking us to analyse the referendum process or h.c interpretation... it is asking us to analyse the impact of the referendum process on the division of law making power in the cases, therefore youre analyzing the cases in respect to the referendum not stating the strengths and weaknesses of a referendum.... even in respect to the cases, all you have to say is how it chnages division of law making powers in respect to the cases..
Idk, i read that question very carefull and technically that is what it's asking
This is the way I read it.
Using one HC case and one referendum, analyse how these cases impacted the division of power.
But then I was persuaded by Lloyd's statement that you needed to slip in strengths and weaknesses there somewhere.
HOWEVER look at how easy you could have misread the question:
ORIGINAL QUESTION: "using one referendum and one higgh court case, analyse the impact of referendum and the high courts interpretation of the commonwealth constitution on the division of law making powers"
ADD ONE WORD INTO QUESTION "using one referendum and one higgh court case, analyse the impact of THE referendum and the high courts interpretation of the commonwealth constitution on the division of law making powers"
One word is the difference between getting 2-3 marks and 8 marks. I think this is a very subtle trick question?
-
I read the question about 5 times in the exam and that's what I thought also
yeh i misread, however my response to esther is the answer for both
-
thanks for that yes i agree completely, so for example like i said before an anlysis for a referendum like the 1967 aborigines one would be like it shifted the division of law-making powers form the state to comm parliaments by allowing them to move into an area of residual power and legislate in regards to aboriginal people.
For high court for brislans case- the high court interpreted the phrase 'other like services' to include broadcasting to wireless sets thus allowing the com parliament to be able to legislate in regards to postal, telegraphic, telephonic and other like services including boradcasting wireless sets, thus shifting the division of law making powers to the comm parliment by allowing them to enter into an area of law that was residual.
impact was a shift of division of law making powers form states to commonwealth parliament.
So are you now saying strengths and weaknesses of the oveall processes are not needed? Instead, you only need to analyse the individual cases?
-
This is the way I read it.
Using one HC case and one referendum, analyse how these cases impacted the division of power.
But then I was persuaded by Lloyd's statement that you needed to slip in strengths and weaknesses there somewhere.
HOWEVER look at how easy you could have misread the question:
ORIGINAL QUESTION: "using one referendum and one higgh court case, analyse the impact of referendum and the high courts interpretation of the commonwealth constitution on the division of law making powers"
ADD ONE WORD INTO QUESTION "using one referendum and one higgh court case, analyse the impact of THE referendum and the high courts interpretation of the commonwealth constitution on the division of law making powers"
One word is the difference between getting 2-3 marks and 8 marks. I think this is a very subtle trick question?
yeh theres a subtle trick :)
-
So are you now saying strengths and weaknesses of the oveall processes are not needed? Instead, you only need to analyse the individual cases?
yep, i did the exam today just so i had the answers and i provided both strengths and weaknesses and the impact of the cases as well as description of both high court interpretation and referendums, that will get you the 8 but you dont need the strengths and weaknesses but they wont hurt.
-
thanks for that yes i agree completely, so for example like i said before an anlysis for a referendum like the 1967 aborigines one would be like it shifted the division of law-making powers form the state to comm parliaments by allowing them to move into an area of residual power and legislate in regards to aboriginal people.
For high court for brislans case- the high court interpreted the phrase 'other like services' to include broadcasting to wireless sets thus allowing the com parliament to be able to legislate in regards to postal, telegraphic, telephonic and other like services including boradcasting wireless sets, thus shifting the division of law making powers to the comm parliment by allowing them to enter into an area of law that was residual.
impact was a shift of division of law making powers form states to commonwealth parliament.
you had me worried! haha
yeah it was quite tricky, but that was my initial response, i used the franklin dam case and the 1967 referendum and stated the shift in power that occurred through both process, that was how i analysed them and stated the outcome of the cases and the impact they had in shift of power
that is an effect of referendum and h.c interpretation when they are analysed in respect of shifting in law making power
it was a big question so lets hope i was right!
-
you had me worried! haha
yeah it was quite tricky, but that was my initial response, i used the franklin dam case and the 1967 referendum and stated the shift in power that occurred through both process, that was how i analysed them and stated the outcome of the cases and the impact they had in shift of power
that is an effect of referendum and h.c interpretation when they are analysed in respect of shifting in law making power
it was a big question so lets hope i was right!
sorry about that, thanks for picking it up and Good luck :)
-
sorry about that, thanks for picking it up and Good luck :)
Haha, just a worried student, it's all good! And thanks, hopefully I can achieve a similar score to yours :)
-
sorry about that, thanks for picking it up and Good luck :)
"Using one referendum and one high court case, analyse the impact of referendum and the high courts interpretation on the commonwealth constitution on the division of law making powers."
I thought this question meant "analyse the impact of referendums and HC interpretation on the division of powers, using cases to explain your point."
So I said the referendums don't always impact division of powers because (1) there have been few successful ones and (2) the outcome of some referendums don't always change the balance of power e.g. the referendum about the judge's retirement age. Then I said that referendums can also change the division of power using the Indigenous Australians referendum and its facts to explain how the Commonwealth gained power etc. I did the same for HC, as in the interpretations can cause legislation to be declared invalid e.g. Roach case and can also allow implied rights to rise e.g. right to freedom of political communication. Again, I then explained the First Uniform Tax case to demonstrate how the interpretation caused a shift in the balance of power
Do you think this is right... or have I gone way way way offtrack in trying to analyse the impact of referendums/HC interpretation. Hated this question on the exam! I was so confused how two cases could equal 8 marks.
-
I did the same for HC, as in the interpretations can cause legislation to be declared invalid e.g. Roach case and can also allow implied rights to rise e.g. right to freedom of political communication. Again, I then explained the First Uniform Tax case to demonstrate how the interpretation caused a shift in the balance of power
Do you think this is right... or have I gone way way way offtrack in trying to analyse the impact of referendums/HC interpretation. Hated this question on the exam! I was so confused how two cases could equal 8 marks.
To be honest, I think the question only asked for an analysis on the HC's effect on the division of power. I don't think talking about how they can declare legislation invalid will achieve you any marks. Also, Roach's case is not appropriate here nor is implied rights because they all don't change the division of power. But with an eight marker they can't deduct marks if you write wrong things (global marking), so hopefully your division of power content compensates for it.
-
To be honest, I think the question only asked for an analysis on the HC's effect on the division of power. I don't think talking about how they can declare legislation invalid will achieve you any marks. Also, Roach's case is not appropriate here nor is implied rights because they all don't change the division of power. But with an eight marker they can't deduct marks if you write wrong things (global marking), so hopefully your division of power content compensates for it.
yep, agreed with Bong those things that you have mentioned do not relate to division of powers, for example the roach case is a good example of protecting rights through representative gov, i.e right to vote, but doesnt related to a shift of powers which is what the questions is demanding.
-
To be honest, I think the question only asked for an analysis on the HC's effect on the division of power. I don't think talking about how they can declare legislation invalid will achieve you any marks. Also, Roach's case is not appropriate here nor is implied rights because they all don't change the division of power. But with an eight marker they can't deduct marks if you write wrong things (global marking), so hopefully your division of power content compensates for it.
Fair call mate. I just didn't see how two cases and an explanation of their impact on power could be 8 marks. The content in it would be no where near as much as I'd usually write for such a large question. However, giving the strengths and weaknesses of the impact as a result of cases sounds like a probable way to go... I guess we'll have to wait and see for the examiners report. Hope you aced your first VCE exam. Only 5 to go!
-
cant now but ill write the questions and the associated marks.
(1) 2 marks- other than doctrine of precedent whats another reason for court hierarchy?
(b)2 marks- outline why the supreme court(court of appeal) does not have to follow its previous decisions?
(2) 3 marks- explain the role of the senate in the law- making process?
(3) 2 marks- describe one restriction that is imposed by the constitution on the law making powers of the state parliaments.
(b) 4 marks- identify two types of law making powers of the state parliaments, provide an example of each.
(4) 3 marks- sophie has civil dispute with neighbour. she is seeking $500,000 in damages. Sophie thinks that
.her trial will be heard in the magistrates' court
. she will have a trial heard by a judge and a jury of 12 people
. she can go to the VLRC to seek legal advice
outline why each statement is incorrect.
(5) 2 marks- provide one reason why a court may need to interpret statute
(b) 3 marks- "parliament cannot make laws that override decisions made by the supreme court of victoria"-is this correct or incorrect?
(6) 4 marks- describe two dispute resolution methods that were used by the courts
(7) 4 marks- one similarity and one difference between aus approach and a country of your choices protection of rights
(8) 5 marks- "commital hearings are comlplicated and serve no useful purpose"- discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with this statement.
(9)5 marks- "trial by jury is inefficient and outdated"- discuss two possible reforms to the jury system
(10) 6 marks- evaluate the effectiveness of two methods that are used by individuals or groups to influence a change in the law
(11)7 marks- vcat is always better option to resolve civil disputes than courts because it is less expensive and quicker- do you agree with this statement?
(12)using one referendum and one higgh court case, analyse the impact of referendum and the high courts interpretation of the commonwealth constitution on the division of law making powers.
(13)discuss the extent to which the adversarial system achieves one of the elements of an effective legal system. in your answer, compare two features of adversary with inquisitorial system.
For question 5b for 3 marks did you have to use an example of parliament abrogating like in trigwells case to get full marks?
-
nah no examples are necessary
-
joseph remember :)
-
(9)5 marks- "trial by jury is inefficient and outdated"- discuss two possible reforms to the jury system.
Was this actually out of 5? I don't remember if it was 4 or 5...
If it was 5, could you explain the mark allocation?
I defined what a reform actually was, then talked about (1) juries required to give reasons, with a couple of strengths and a couple of weaknesses, and (2) relaxing the exclusionary provisions when selecting a jury, with only one strength and two weaknesses.
Also can we talk about the mark allocation for the 10 marker? Because aren't the % of students who get full marks for that question normally in single digits? (Can't be bothered checking past exams). So I'd imagine the assessors would be ordered to mark quite hard given it was one of the easier 10 markers I had come across...
EDIT:
2012- 10/10 was achieved by 4% of students (9/10 by 5%)
2011- 10/10 was achieved by 10% of students (9/10 by 8%)
-
Was this actually out of 5? I don't remember if it was 4 or 5...
If it was 5, could you explain the mark allocation?
I defined what a reform actually was, then talked about (1) juries required to give reasons, with a couple of strengths and a couple of weaknesses, and (2) relaxing the exclusionary provisions when selecting a jury, with only one strength and two weaknesses.
Also can we talk about the mark allocation for the 10 marker? Because normally aren't the % of students who get full marks for that question normally in single digits? (Can't be bothered checking past exams). So I'd imagine the assessor's would be ordered to mark quite hard given it was one of the easier 10 markers I had come across...
EDIT:
2012- 10/10 was achieved by 4% of students (9/10 by 5%)
2011- 10/10 was achieved by 10% of students (9/10 by 8%)
i presume for question 5 a mark each for the reforms, so thats two out of the five and then three marks on discussing how these reforms can make the jury efficient and relevant, strengths and weaknesses is a good way to go.
q 10: yeh its hard always cause they can take marks off for expression and such like an english essay, not much just like 1 mark or something but still. theres 4 marks in identfying two adversary and comparing with inquis. then a mark for linking features of adversary to one element. the remainder 5 marks is talking about the features and discussing how they achieve this element, i would look at aspects that achieve it and aspects that hinder it, so strengths and weakness of each feature, i would do at least 4 features i.e judge, legal rep, parties, rules of evidence and procedure.
-
Is this a set standard allocation? Because I didn't follow that allocation but still had a lot to talk about, with my answer filling up all the given space
-
Is this a set standard allocation? Because I didn't follow that allocation but still had a lot to talk about, with my answer filling up all the given space
nah man in the 10 marker there is no real structure that anyone has to follow, thats just an idea, and what id personally do, but that is definitely not the only way.
-
nah man in the 10 marker there is no real structure that anyone has to follow, thats just an idea, and what id personally do, but that is definitely not the only way.
So they really just mark it globally? But in saying that, a nice structure really helps?
Because yeah I didn't follow the structure you suggested, I actually filled two pages just comparing two features of adversarial and inquisitorial, but surely they'll mark on the quality of writing over anything else (i.e. full marks will be rewarded to those who make it easy for the assessor to assume you know your stuff, given the depth and relevance of the writing provided)
-
So they really just mark it globally? But in saying that, a nice structure really helps?
Because yeah I didn't follow the structure you suggested, I actually filled two pages just comparing two features of adversarial and inquisitorial, but surely they'll mark on the quality of writing over anything else (i.e. full marks will be rewarded to those who make it easy for the assessor to assume you know your stuff, given the depth and relevance of the writing provided)
yep they mark it globally, well the most important thing is first getting the facts correct, like no misconceptions then its based on structure, that is answering the question and also understanding what 'extent' means that being you have to make a judgement and prove it through discussion, that is generally through strengths and weaknesses. it probably has to have a intro and conclusion, and your expression has to be clear and writing legible, then if all that is fine then you will get the 10.
-
yep they mark it globally, well the most important thing is first getting the facts correct, like no misconceptions then its based on structure, that is answering the question and also understanding what 'extent' means that being you have to make a judgement and prove it through discussion, that is generally through strengths and weaknesses. it probably has to have a intro and conclusion, and your expression has to be clear and writing legible, then if all that is fine then you will get the 10.
Okay great, thanks, that clears it up :)
I know there are so many variables from year to year, but given your time in Legal, what SS would you expect the following to get:
G.A #1- 94/100
G.A #2- 94/100
G.A #3- 68/70
-
Okay great, thanks, that clears it up :)
I know there are so many variables from year to year, but given your time in Legal, what SS would you expect the following to get:
G.A #1- 94/100
G.A #2- 94/100
G.A #3- 68/70
normally id say 49, but because this was a relatively easy exam, a safe bet would be 48
-
normally id say 49, but because this was a relatively easy exam, a safe bet would be 48
Great, thanks!
Yeah the relatively easier difficulty level of the exam, I'd imagine, is making it hard for many to predict what score they'll be getting. Makes the wait that bit more anxious, but exciting at the same time.
-
For the question regarding parliament cannot override decisions made by the supreme court isnt that correct? because parliament can only override laws or interpretation made by the courts. And didnt the question say overide decision? i thought that due to the seperation of powers, parliaments cannot change a courts decision on a sentence through legislation however can pass a new legislation for that area? that question confused the hell out of me :'(
-
For the question regarding parliament cannot override decisions made by the supreme court isnt that correct? because parliament can only override laws or interpretation made by the courts. And didnt the question say overide decision? i thought that due to the seperation of powers, parliaments cannot change a courts decision on a sentence through legislation however can pass a new legislation for that area? that question confused the hell out of me :'(
The question was "Parliament cannot make laws that override decisions made by the Supreme Court of Victoria" - is this statement correct or incorrect?
The only time parliament cannot make laws that override decisions made by courts is when interpretation of the Commonwealth Constitution by the High Court takes place. This, I thought, was worth mentioning (even though the question specifically related to the Supreme Court of Victoria), because apart from that, parliament can make law to override any decisions made by the Supreme Court of Victoria (i.e. abrogation) as, ultimately, they are the supreme law making body in Australia. Therefore the statement in the question was incorrect. I was having trouble deciding whether to chuck in the Trigwell case to accentuate my point, but I didn't put it in as I wasn't sure if it was a case heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria.
I think this question threw some people because it related specifically to the Supreme Court of Victoria, where most people would've rehearsed this question with reference to courts in general, prior to the exam. However, the fact it was referring to one particular court shouldn't have really changed answers all too much, but it could have thrown students given the exam conditions.
All your logic is there, but I just think you misread the question. You're right in saying that parliament can't necessarily overturn a decision reached in a trial at hand, but they can definitely override the decision in terms of passing legislation that suggests the opposite to the court's decision (I think that's right, I never really studied that part of the course in detail).
-
I didn't have a conclusion for the ten marker, but i think my essay was sufficient, detailed and made clear arguments but I wont get full marks for no conclusion?! :'(
-
Suggested solutions released in a new thread:
VCAA 2013 Legal Studies Suggested Solutions
-
Wow. I never knew analyse meant strengths and weaknesses. I basically just did Dams case: list basic facts of the case; state how division of power changed and that is all
That's precisely what I did, and when I contacted my friend (who got a 50 for legal) and legal teacher, who used to work directly with the chief examiner. They both said that evaluate is exclusive to "strengths and weaknesses." We only had to analyse how the division of powers was altered.
-
That's precisely what I did, and when I contacted my friend (who got a 50 for legal) and legal teacher, who used to work directly with the chief examiner. They both said that evaluate is exclusive to "strengths and weaknesses." We only had to analyse how the division of powers was altered.
I hope this is true! :D
-
Same! I wrote about how the division of powers is usually changed with referenda, but also mentioned that sometimes this isn't the case e.g. the 1977 referendum providing for a compulsory retirement age of 70. I mentioned the increased tendency for HCA interpretation to favour an increase in Cmlth power and a decrease in state power under the 'activist' approach, but I didn't give strengths and weaknesses as a whole because I thought the question was rather asking "to what extent is the division of power changed?" But oh well, time will tell.
And also, would we necessarily lose a mark in the Plt/Supreme Court Qs if we didn't explicitly state that parliament is the supreme law-making body? I said it was incorrect, because as part of the courts-plt relationship, the courts sometimes interpret legislation in a way that is not reflective of plt's intentions in passing the act, and because they can interpret it in a way that is contrary to societal values. And then I gave the Trigwell Case as an example....will be interested to read the breakdown of marks in the report. :)