ATAR Notes: Forum
Archived Discussion => 2010 => End-of-year exams => Exam Discussion => Victoria => Legal Studies => Topic started by: milkcarton on November 10, 2010, 03:20:37 pm
-
HOWD EVERYONE GO!!!!!
-
I did this last year and it was quite long, IMO. I wonder how it was this year...
-
i did it in an hour. i think it was dumbed down.
but meh.
-
Screw last year's exams! I hope this year's is easier, for their sake....
-
It was too easy.
-
This exam was easy as piss
-
Which court hears culpable driving???????
Other than that I really liked the exam :)
-
The exam was 3 'til 5:15 this arvo :) Just got out now.
It was friggen awesome! I'm unsure of whether I covered enough points in a couple of the extended response questions though... Question 11 (Part A) was perfect! My teacher predicted it exactly, which was helpful.
Culpable driving is heard in the County Court, this is one of the main criticisms of the courts.
-
It was really good....
Which court hears culpable driving???????
Other than that I really liked the exam :)
I put county??? but am unsure wbu?
-
That sounds like an easy question. I do year 11 legal.
It was just a 1 marker so meh... ill take what i can from VCAA
Finally the first exam I've done that I am proud of
-
for saaaaam
Yeah it is the County Court, i was a bit unsure of this but i put county as well and i am very happy ;D ;D :)
http://www.criminal-lawyers.com.au/web/page/vic_culpable_driving_causing_death
-
Good. So long as other people put County too. :P
I absolutely loved the extended response on the adversary system. I didn't think they would put it on there though, so that was a nice surprise.
Strangely, it was the 1 and 2 mark questions that got me. Like the rights of the police and the individual. My teacher spent no time on these and basically told us to go memorise three of each. Which was fine except the ones I had learnt were all from before an arrest and the question asked for after. So I made an educated guess. I hope they're right.
-
Ah crap. I debated whether it was County Court or Magistrates'. For some reason the next question about 'who would decide' set off alarm bells but didn't convince me to change.
Reckon there could be a technicality that most culpable driving would end up indictable charged summarily? XD
Other than that, like andy said: first exam I'm proud of.
Edit: Excuse the question I really should have learnt in Year 11 but are culpable driving and culpable driving causing death the same thing? In the end that's one of the factors that convinced me to pick Magistrates'...woops XD
-
A+ cut off? Do you think it will be higher than last years??
-
It was awesome as.... :D
-
Good. So long as other people put County too. :P
I absolutely loved the extended response on the adversary system. I didn't think they would put it on there though, so that was a nice surprise.
Strangely, it was the 1 and 2 mark questions that got me. Like the rights of the police and the individual. My teacher spent no time on these and basically told us to go memorise three of each. Which was fine except the ones I had learnt were all from before an arrest and the question asked for after. So I made an educated guess. I hope they're right.
CRAP.... So fingerprinting is wrong???
what are police powers after an arrest
-
I did magistrates as well :( 2 marks gone :(:(
-
I did magistrates as well :( 2 marks gone :(:(
dude our teacher who is an examiner said it was magistrates wth :S
culpable driving isn't that serious of an offence! -.-'
-
I did magistrates as well :( 2 marks gone :(:(
dude our teacher who is an examiner said it was magistrates wth :S
culpable driving isn't that serious of an offence! -.-'
Culpable driving is reckless driving causin harm... i think...
but Does culpable driving mean someone died??
-
I did magistrates as well :( 2 marks gone :(:(
dude our teacher who is an examiner said it was magistrates wth :S
culpable driving isn't that serious of an offence! -.-'
Culpable driving is reckless driving causin harm... i think...
but Does culpable driving mean someone died??
That's what I'm wondering. Culpable driving causing death I definitely remember going over as a specific concept last year, I don't however remember whether it was separate to culpable driving itself :S
-
culpable driving doesn't necessarily always have to end in death... maybe damages to property and such? lol
man It better be Magistrates! :(
-
According to http://www.woj.com.au/culpable-driving/
Culpable Driving: This offence covers homicides caused by the culpable driving of a motor vehicle. This offence is committed where a person drives a motor vehicle negligently, recklessly or whilst under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
-
I said county. I remember going to a case last year on a school excursion for legal 1/2 and it was something to do with a guy who was drunk, speeding, hit a tree and killed his girlfriend and their baby... But the exact charge I can't remember :(
I hope county.
-
According to http://www.woj.com.au/culpable-driving/
Culpable Driving: This offence covers homicides caused by the culpable driving of a motor vehicle. This offence is committed where a person drives a motor vehicle negligently, recklessly or whilst under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
That sounds pretty serious to me :P
Are VCAA allowed to ask us something as specific as this?
It'd be different if they'd asked for the jurisdiction of the Magistrates or County, but it's not as if everyone studies culpable driving. I don't think it was mentioned once all year in my class.
-
Good. So long as other people put County too. :P
I absolutely loved the extended response on the adversary system. I didn't think they would put it on there though, so that was a nice surprise.
Strangely, it was the 1 and 2 mark questions that got me. Like the rights of the police and the individual. My teacher spent no time on these and basically told us to go memorise three of each. Which was fine except the ones I had learnt were all from before an arrest and the question asked for after. So I made an educated guess. I hope they're right.
CRAP.... So fingerprinting is wrong???
what are police powers after an arrest
hmm... i think fingerprinting is right hopefully.. cause that's what i put down.
it would be silly to fingerprint someone before an arrest :S
-
Well that's three marks down, I just realized I also put 44 MLCs instead of 40. Damn me thinking it was half -_-
The actual textbook doesn't mention culpable driving in any of the jurisdictions however, only reference is on page 36 (according to the index at least) and the Thomas Towle case. And that doesn't actually mention what sort of sentence that gives, only dangerous driving causing death has a max of ten years.
-
What rights did people put for after arrest?
It could include gathering evidence or questioning rights couldn't it?
-
Well that's three marks down, I just realized I also put 44 MLCs instead of 40. Damn me thinking it was half -_-
The actual textbook doesn't mention culpable driving in any of the jurisdictions however, only reference is on page 36 (according to the index at least) and the Thomas Towle case. And that doesn't actually mention what sort of sentence that gives, only dangerous driving causing death has a max of ten years.
Whats an MLC??? cause im now thinking i got that one wrong
-
Member of the Legislative Council. Question about the structure of Victorian parliament.
-
I never have to think about legal again. I shall not wallow in any of my mistakes. Goodbye VN legal boards :)
-
Well that's three marks down, I just realized I also put 44 MLCs instead of 40. Damn me thinking it was half -_-
I don't think you'll lose marks for that.
-
I didnt write the number.... does that matter???
-
I didnt write the number.... does that matter???
I shouldn't think so. So long as you provide enough information to get the marks. I didn't mention the number in each house but said it was bi-cameral, and then explained that in reference to the Victorian Parliament. Can't see why that wouldn't get the marks.
-
I didnt write the number.... does that matter???
I shouldn't think so. So long as you provide enough information to get the marks. I didn't mention the number in each house but said it was bi-cameral, and then explained that in reference to the Victorian Parliament. Can't see why that wouldn't get the marks.
And didn't forget the governor.
-
I didnt write the number.... does that matter???
I shouldn't think so. So long as you provide enough information to get the marks. I didn't mention the number in each house but said it was bi-cameral, and then explained that in reference to the Victorian Parliament. Can't see why that wouldn't get the marks.
And didn't forget the governor.
Oh thank god. I was 90% sure we needed the governor but had this nagging doubt for some reason. Kept it in though. Good decision 0_0
-
I didnt write the number.... does that matter???
I shouldn't think so. So long as you provide enough information to get the marks. I didn't mention the number in each house but said it was bi-cameral, and then explained that in reference to the Victorian Parliament. Can't see why that wouldn't get the marks.
And didn't forget the governor.
Oh thank god. I was 90% sure we needed the governor but had this nagging doubt for some reason. Kept it in though. Good decision 0_0
I forgot to say bi-cameral or westminster :( I rushed that question cos it was the last one and I had to get back to Question 11 to finish it off, I just said 'the victorian parliament consists of a lower house (legislative assembly), an upper house (legislative council) and the governer (currently David De Kretza).'
I reckon I lost a mark for not using the term bicameral or westminster.
-
I loved this exam, very straightfoward, and I finished comfortably with enough time to check answers!
Wrote a very long essay for extended response, (chose B).
I hate the fact that of all the question in the exam, that stupid Q2 threw me off.
-
That exam was too easy...
I was happy i got my parliament 10 mark, that i had practiced about 10 times :D
-
Poor people at my school
Some people didnt know what retention meant for Jury
Some person goes to me, i thought it meant not to retain. So said they were against it, but wrote reasons to keep it....
-
I didn't finish on time :( I didn't mention bicameral or westminster for Victorian Parliament. I was also confused about the culpable driving, I put down Magistrates. Didn't finish the question on evaluating the strengths of doctrine of precedent.
It has been the easiest exam so far though.
-
What swayed me towards Magistrates' court was the fact that he was sentanced to 1500 hours of community service. Surely culpable driving causing death would not get a community based sentance?
-
people didn't know what retention meant at my school too !! lol i only know it cause of psych ahha
-
I am sure that if they thought retention meant to abolish
and wrote reasons for. but said they didnt support abolishment..
I don't think they'll get penalized that bad. lol
-
"SEAN McCormick, 22-year-old Keysborough man involved in a hit and run accident has been charged at the Dandenong Magistrate’s court on one count of culpable driving and one count of reckless driving."
http://www.criminal-lawyers.com.au/web/page/vic_culpable_driving_causing_death
The county court deals with culpable driving causing death, but culpable driving doesn't necessarily cause death, but death or injury.
I think without the influence of alcohol or another substance, the 250 hours of community service + fine would be too lenient, but it didn't specify that. If those were factors, it would still have been in the Magistrates court according to
http://www.magistratescourt.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/Magistrates+Court/Home/Traffic+Offences/MAGISTRATES+-+Alcohol+Interlock+-+FAQs
Let me know what you guys think. I'm pretty convinced it's magistrates.
-
Would that be indictable tried summarily though? Does anyone remember where Thomas Towle was tried originally? I remember there being an appeal and him being in the Supreme Court at some stage but I can't remember if that was concurrently or not...I know he only got ten years though which would fit indictable held summarily.
That of course just raises the question...would it more likely to be a straight indictable or indictable held summarily according to VCAA?
-
Didn't specify, but I'm with Duck, negating the factors mentioned in my post would really make what the court decided on as 'way' too lenient. If the offense included death, then a jury would probably have been called in. But, if it's just an injury, there is more a chance it would be heard summarily, no?
-
Edit: Woops didn't double post afterall XD
Maybe we were all wrong?
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/thomas-towle-appeals-length-of-sentence-received-after-he-killed-six-teenagers-in-mildura-crash/story-e6frf7jo-1225806679745
'A Supreme Court jury acquitted him of six counts of culpable driving...' talks about his appeal in the Court of Appeals from that sentence
-
My teacher said either will have to be accepted, because it can be both. She said VCAA had to stuff up what could of be a completely straight forward exam.
-
Would a mention of bicameral or Westminster be required in q1?
I said the number of members for each house and the terms of service, and mentioned the Governoer as the Queen's Rep.
-
My teacher said either will have to be accepted, because it can be both. She said VCAA had to stuff up what could of be a completely straight forward exam.
if this is true, the A+ cut off just got pushed up to about 60/60 :P
-
But that negates my other point. Thomas Towle's culpable driving caused death. This was not specified in the question.
Good link though.
-
But that negates my other point. Thomas Towle's culpable driving caused death. This was not specified in the question.
Good link though.
Yeah but they referred to it just as culpable driving...that could be the good old Hun at work though
Edit: Which makes me still unsure whether they're just one in the same offense.
Would be utterly hilarious if everyone got that wrong XD
-
Newspapers are not good with legal jargon. xD
But yeah, it was a ridiculous question to have in the exam 'anyway'.
-
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/
Only 'Culpable driving causing death' is listed in the crimes act (not just 'culpable driving'). Does the crimes act only list indictable offences or summary ones too?
-
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/
Only 'Culpable driving causing death' is listed in the crimes act (not just 'culpable driving'). Does the crimes act only list indictable offences or summary ones too?
Seems to be summary, you have theft and that there and by the looks of it all the assaults too.
Interests me there's still a crime for piracy...wonder if that one has ever been used
Edit: And yes it is of the 'arr' kind, not digital XD
-
I think they should accept both as we were not meant to specifically learn each offences 'court,' but rather jurisdictions....
-
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/
Only 'Culpable driving causing death' is listed in the crimes act (not just 'culpable driving'). Does the crimes act only list indictable offences or summary ones too?
Seems to be summary, you have theft and that there and by the looks of it all the assaults too.
Interests me there's still a crime for piracy...wonder if that one has ever been used
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/soa1966189/
That's the Summary Offecnes Act... which I didn't even know existed. I can't find it in there either, but then again, 'Culpable driving' could have an act all to itself (culpable driving act??). Anyway, i'm gonna go have dinner.
-
Yeah, but if you look at the clauses
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) a person drives a motor vehicle
culpably if he drives the motor vehicle-
(a) recklessly, that is to say, if he consciously and unjustifiably
disregards a substantial risk that the death of another person or the
infliction of grievous bodily harm upon another person may result from
his driving; or
(b) negligently, that is to say, if he fails unjustifiably and to a gross
degree to observe the standard of care which a reasonable man would
have observed in all the circumstances of the case; or
(c) whilst under the influence of alcohol to such an extent as to be
incapable of having proper control of the motor vehicle; or
(d) whilst under the influence of a drug to such an extent as to be
incapable of having proper control of the motor vehicle.
That seems to indicate that there is a distinction, because it goes on to define what 'culpable driving' is, which does not, as it describes, always equal death, but can just be a terrible injury.
-
I reckon they'll accept both.
That exam was a little too easy, a very high A+ cutoff is likely.
-
Yeah, most likely accept both. :]
-
I did magistrates, as it was an indictable offence heard summarily.
-
which one did everyone pick for the last question. i chose b) which was decent i thought. wrote a good 2.5 pages
-
I did parliament question
only because i practised that question like 5 times, as i was convinced this would be the 10 mark!
I got my wish, did about 3.5 pages for it
-
A. But I've always been more fond of Unit 3.
-
A. I worked in discussion about the new parliamentry numbers and how that could lead to watering down of legislation of benefit to the majority in order to please those 4 or 5 men. Or something along those lines XD
-
A, I talked about Joh Bjelke-Peterson, new parliamentry make up, Mabo (then realised that it didn't quite fit what the question was asking, so I added a paragraph at the end about trigwell), In futro, resources etc.
The B question was realy good this year, I would have chosen that if I had studied each equaly, but I had done A in every practice exam, so I did A... which was still a nice question.
-
B. Did so many practise question, and got 10/10 for the EXACT some question in my Sac so was very happy.
They said one reform, but I had plenty of time so did one for reach paragraph so the examiner has a pick of all the reforms.
I loved this exam, so much time,so I wrote the essay over 40 minutes, and still had twenty minutes to check and add to my questions.
Looking back, will I be penalised for including more reforms?
-
You don't get penalized for adding information, however, you will only be marked on what they specified. E.g If they asked you for two reforms, if you wrote three, they wont mark you down, but will only take into account two.
-
You don't get penalized for adding information, however, you will only be marked on what they specified. E.g If they asked you for two reforms, if you wrote three, they wont mark you down, but will only take into account two.
i think more specifically, they will read the first two reforms and not even look at the third, even if the third one was better
-
I picked A.....
Think I critically evaluated well enough....
-
coming out of the exam i felt pretty good, but now ive realised a few stupid mistakes of mine and so now im feeling pretty low :(
-
I did this last year and it was quite long, IMO. I wonder how it was this year...
I think it was at the same standard maybe a little easier if anything. Hope I did good ;)
-
SO EASY!!!!!
-
I attempted all questions and was happy for all except the last. I'm not sure if my handwriting is really small or did i just left a half a page out. :-[
But all in all, easy exam. Got excited actually ;D
-
I struggled to finish! Other than that it was...OK.
-
Last question on 2006 paper:
a. ‘Parliament is a very effective law-maker. There are no significant weaknesses in the way parliament
carries out this role.’
Discuss this statement and indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with it.
Justify your conclusions.
Remind you of anything?
-
I thought I had read the question before.......
just couldnt place it
-
Good. So long as other people put County too. :P
I absolutely loved the extended response on the adversary system. I didn't think they would put it on there though, so that was a nice surprise.
Strangely, it was the 1 and 2 mark questions that got me. Like the rights of the police and the individual. My teacher spent no time on these and basically told us to go memorise three of each. Which was fine except the ones I had learnt were all from before an arrest and the question asked for after. So I made an educated guess. I hope they're right.
CRAP.... So fingerprinting is wrong???
what are police powers after an arrest
I said that a police power is to detain the suspect for what is considered to be a 'reasonable' time, and that a right of the individual is to request a phone call to a friend or relative in that time. But I'm not entirely sure if that's right, and I've already thrown all my notes out so I can't double check haha
-
Just found them on the computer:
Arrest - your rights
Police must tell you why you are being arrested
Must ‘caution’ you before questioning you formally
Can only hold you in custody for a ‘reasonable time’ without charging you
In most cases, you have the right to phone a friend or relative, and to phone a lawyer in private.
-
What swayed me towards Magistrates' court was the fact that he was sentanced to 1500 hours of community service. Surely culpable driving causing death would not get a community based sentance?
agree ^^!
and also the fact that Q2 stated. who would give the sanction in this case? and i thought this was a trick of the vcaa to try to get students to write straight away a Judge... but in the magistrates court it is a Magistrate.
fingers crossed!!
-
Good. So long as other people put County too. :P
I absolutely loved the extended response on the adversary system. I didn't think they would put it on there though, so that was a nice surprise.
Strangely, it was the 1 and 2 mark questions that got me. Like the rights of the police and the individual. My teacher spent no time on these and basically told us to go memorise three of each. Which was fine except the ones I had learnt were all from before an arrest and the question asked for after. So I made an educated guess. I hope they're right.
CRAP.... So fingerprinting is wrong???
what are police powers after an arrest
I said that a police power is to detain the suspect for what is considered to be a 'reasonable' time, and that a right of the individual is to request a phone call to a friend or relative in that time. But I'm not entirely sure if that's right, and I've already thrown all my notes out so I can't double check haha
that's exactly what i said :)
-
I did the 2 very simple ones:
Right to remain silent (accused)
Demand for name and address of person charged (police)
-
I said right to remain silent, and power to take body samples if consent is given or a court order is obtained :)
-
I said right to have an interpreter present during questioning if English is deficient,
and power to question arrested person for a reasonable period of time.
-
^ That's what I used.
-
I said right to remain silent, and power to take body samples if consent is given or a court order is obtained :)
Exactly what i did. "The right to take DNA samples from an individual over the age of 18, when a court warrant is obtained"
-
no it isnt
I did magistrates as well :( 2 marks gone :(:(
dude our teacher who is an examiner said it was magistrates wth :S
culpable driving isn't that serious of an offence! -.-'
Culpable driving is reckless driving causin harm... i think...
but Does culpable driving mean someone died??
-
Just quickly, back to the 10-marker. How many pages did roughly everyone write? I wrote 2.5 or there abouts, hopefully covered enough. Probably just worried for no reason, but meh. Should be studying for business! FML.
-
Just quickly, back to the 10-marker. How many pages did roughly everyone write? I wrote 2.5 or there abouts, hopefully covered enough. Probably just worried for no reason, but meh. Should be studying for business! FML.
just over 3.... i did the first one
-
Sorry, so why is fingerprinting wrong?
-
Sorry, so why is fingerprinting wrong?
Because its a pre-arrest measure, however it can also be taken at arrest, during processing, so there is a bit of leave-way there.
-
Sorry, so why is fingerprinting wrong?
Because its a pre-arrest measure, however it can also be taken at arrest, during processing, so there is a bit of leave-way there.
In my textbook it has
-arrested and formally charged
-suspect questioned for reasonable time
-suspect fingerprinted; and DNA taken if required
-right to silence
then application for bail....
i think fingerprinting should be all good.
-
Crap! :( so do I most likely lose 2 marks for it??? I think I'm gonna cry!
-
I really hope andy456 is right.
-
I really hope andy456 is right.
]
I hope so to cause I did fingerprinting also
-
I would have thought fingerprinting was fine :S
-
finger printing will be fine, they weren't trying to trip us up on that question I don't think.
Only thing is you might have needed to go into a little bit of detail with fingerprinting (like mention that there are age constraints) - unless the task word was 'list' or 'give' or something, but if it was 'explain' you probably shoul have mentioned the age barriers.
-
Fingerprinting is indeed correct. It was a simple mark and question, don't think they were trying to be pedantic there
-
i got a response from a teacher i know marking exams and he said that the answer to the question was county or supreme court, however as the 150 hours led so many students to answer magistrates, it is also being accepted. therefore, of course, the answer to the following question could have been either judge or magistrate. the only area where students might lose marks now is 1b, as that the queens representative (governor) was required to attain 2/2.
fingerprinting is also correct.
-
I didn't mention the Governor. :(
I explained that it was bicameral though. I was hoping that would be enough to get the marks.
-
i threw governor in at the last second. i just don't know why they're marking the culpable driving question so easily, it was pretty much the only question with the ability to trip students up and they've taken that away. they should have stuck with county/supreme and judge, if you got it wrong you got it wrong and lost marks, same as any other question.
-
I find it stupid that we'll be marked wrong for not mentioning the governor. If i remember correctly the question stated "outlined" the "structure" of the Victorian Parliament. Not including the governor should't remove a mark because it's logical thinking that you'd get 1 mark for talking about VIC parliament being bicameral and stating the upper and lower house(There's your structure and 2 points summed up). Thus I didn't include him/her in my answer.
According to my text book the structure of Victorian Parliament is explained by, "It operates the same way as the commonwealth Parliament, with an upper and lower hourse. The upper house being the legislative council and the lower house being the legislative assembly".
-
I find it stupid that we'll be marked wrong for not mentioning the governor. If i remember correctly the question stated "outlined" the "structure" of the Victorian Parliament. Not including the governor should't remove a mark because it's logical thinking that you'd get 1 mark for talking about VIC parliament being bicameral and stating the upper and lower house(There's your structure and 2 points summed up). Thus I didn't include him/her in my answer.
According to my text book the structure of Victorian Parliament is explained by, "It operates the same way as the commonwealth Parliament, with an upper and lower hourse. The upper house being the legislative council and the lower house being the legislative assembly".
Why is it stupid?
Isn't the structure of vic parliament:
Governor
legislative assembly(lower house)
legislative council(upper house)
It's probably fair that we should be expected to mention governor.
Anyways that's just my opinion.
-
I find it stupid that we'll be marked wrong for not mentioning the governor. If i remember correctly the question stated "outlined" the "structure" of the Victorian Parliament. Not including the governor should't remove a mark because it's logical thinking that you'd get 1 mark for talking about VIC parliament being bicameral and stating the upper and lower house(There's your structure and 2 points summed up). Thus I didn't include him/her in my answer.
According to my text book the structure of Victorian Parliament is explained by, "It operates the same way as the commonwealth Parliament, with an upper and lower hourse. The upper house being the legislative council and the lower house being the legislative assembly".
Why is it stupid?
Isn't the structure of vic parliament:
Governor
legislative assembly(lower house)
legislative council(upper house)
It's probably fair that we should be expected to mention governor.
Anyways that's just my opinion.
To be honest, the fact that the governor was part of the structure of parliament was never discussed in my class. We only spoke about the bi-cameral nature of parliament.
I do agree that you shouldn't be penalised for not] mentioning something when you've provided sufficient information for two marks.
-
Fuck. Missed out on the governor part
-
i would have thought to attain two marks you would have to mention the names of the upper (legislative council) and lower (leg. assembly) houses, and then either drop the word bicameral or explain that the governor is the queen's rep. that all three were required for a simple two mark 'outline' question surprised me. but i suppose considering they eased up on an earlier question that was meant to polarise the best from the rest, they had to be stricter on an alternative question worth similar (or the same) marks.
-
I find it stupid that we'll be marked wrong for not mentioning the governor. If i remember correctly the question stated "outlined" the "structure" of the Victorian Parliament. Not including the governor should't remove a mark because it's logical thinking that you'd get 1 mark for talking about VIC parliament being bicameral and stating the upper and lower house(There's your structure and 2 points summed up). Thus I didn't include him/her in my answer.
According to my text book the structure of Victorian Parliament is explained by, "It operates the same way as the commonwealth Parliament, with an upper and lower hourse. The upper house being the legislative council and the lower house being the legislative assembly".
Why is it stupid?
Isn't the structure of vic parliament:
Governor
legislative assembly(lower house)
legislative council(upper house)
It's probably fair that we should be expected to mention governor.
Anyways that's just my opinion.
I respect your opinion, although according to the text book the structure of victorian Parliament includes a bicameral system, and two houses ( Legislative assemly + Council).
Just annoys me!!! :)
-
But if you think about it if you mention a bicameral system and both houses that should be sufficient for two marks.
-
i would have thought so too, but it was such an easy exam they have to mark it extremely strictly.
-
I am 99% sure you needed to say the governor as the structure is two houses and a queens rep.
My teacher talked about the danger of trying to pick where the marks went (ie one mark for naming the houses and one for mentioning bicameral) as it may lead you to write less than what you need to.
From experience queens rep must be mentioned in the structure of parliament
-
Is there half marks in legal?
I heard aswell that Governor was required for 2/2, and furthermore I heard that for marks question two, to gain full marks, you needed either COUNTY COURT,SUPREME COURT,MAGISTRATES Court, all spelled correctly, and for the next party, the specific type of judge, i.e Magistrates JUDGE, County court JUDGE, i.e simply stating Magistrates would not gain you the mark.
-
Why are they being so tight...
-
because it was such an easy exam. not too sure about having to drop the word judge..
i didn't say county court judge, merely 'judge', i would assume i will attain the mark?
-
I'm looking forward to reading the examiner's report when it comes out
-
because it was such an easy exam. not too sure about having to drop the word judge..
i didn't say county court judge, merely 'judge', i would assume i will attain the mark?
I just wrote judge as well.
-
Honestly, if you wrote county for part a, then judge for part b, how can the examiners assume you meant any other judge than that of the county court?
If they really are being that picky then this is just ridiculous.
-
Just to confirm the Jury question, on Neighbours tonight Steph was in the County Court on the charge of culpable driving
I don't think there's a better source lol
-
Just to confirm the Jury question, on Neighbours tonight Steph was in the County Court on the charge of culpable driving
I don't think there's a better source lol
Its settled then. No need to dispute the matter any further.
LOL
-
What happens if You forget Specific Sections But is able to list its functions and how it effects the question