legal vce exam answers

[asli95]

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 

[mdotwillo]

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).

[akeergar]

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?! 

[sam.utute]

Suggested solutions released in a new thread:
VCAA 2013 Legal Studies Suggested Solutions

[90+FTW]

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.

[MrCommerce]

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!

[QuidProQuo]

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.