How did everyone go?

[Zafaraaaa]

Okay so how much would we lose if we did not mention ANY reforms/alternatives for jury system, but evaluated the strengths and weaknesses and outlined the role of VLRC??

[RobDog]

Lol, funny how everyone stresses out AFTER the exam. There's nothing more you can do so just relax.

[kamb0z]

I say it was pretty crucial to include some discussion of alternatives/reforms to the jury system, because remember in the stimulus material it asked whether it should be 'abolished'. To address the 'outdated' part we needed to talk about strengths and weaknesses (which of course everyone did).

I didn't actually go into detail about a reform, but I mentioned it in the VLRC's role to make recommendations on improving the jury system.

Okay so how much would we lose if we did not mention ANY reforms/alternatives for jury system, but evaluated the strengths and weaknesses and outlined the role of VLRC??

If your discussion on S+W was sufficient, I highly doubt you'd lose a lot of marks for not mentioning them.

[izzykose]

If i didnt discuss strengths/weaknesses however, due to time, can i still get marks for the reform and alternative content + i discussed problems (which are interchangeable with weaknesses).

[waffles19]

If i didnt discuss strengths/weaknesses however, due to time, can i still get marks for the reform and alternative content + i discussed problems (which are interchangeable with weaknesses).

yes you will, if you related it to why the jury system might be outdated/might be abolished. it would have been even better to include strengths and weaknesses, but you will get a decent chunk of marks for talking about the jury system IN the reform/alternative explanations.

You might have even hinted/included strengths and weaknesses without explicity writing them as "S/W's" in your reform and alternative, as you explain WHY u need those reforms/alternatives. you WILL get marks, possible even a decent chunk of marks.

don't worry, examiners are there to give marks to you, not take marks away, remember

[bodriagin]

Fuck I only did 2 strengths and 2 weaknesses for the 8 marker, defined VCAT and arbitration. How much would I get for that? I knew 5 strengths and 5 weaknesses but didn't have time.

[zoeee]

on the 8 mark was it similarites because it said compare only?

[playsimme]

Fuck I only did 2 strengths and 2 weaknesses for the 8 marker, defined VCAT and arbitration. How much would I get for that? I knew 5 strengths and 5 weaknesses but didn't have time.

Since when did we have to put strengths and weaknesses for the 8 marker? Doesn't compare just mean compare..?

[Zafaraaaa]

Fuck I only did 2 strengths and 2 weaknesses for the 8 marker, defined VCAT and arbitration. How much would I get for that? I knew 5 strengths and 5 weaknesses but didn't have time.

Since when did we have to put strengths and weaknesses for the 8 marker? Doesn't compare just mean compare..?

Yeaaah, like comparing them in terms of how they operate?? Like in terms of formality, time, costs and stuff, right??

[playsimme]

Yup exactly and I threw in some random bullshit like how appeals are limited with vcat and how theres 3 divisions etc and how it's only civil etc

[zoeee]

Fuck I only did 2 strengths and 2 weaknesses for the 8 marker, defined VCAT and arbitration. How much would I get for that? I knew 5 strengths and 5 weaknesses but didn't have time.

Since when did we have to put strengths and weaknesses for the 8 marker? Doesn't compare just mean compare..?

compare means similarities....

Yeaaah, like comparing them in terms of how they operate?? Like in terms of formality, time, costs and stuff, right??

[playsimme]

no compare means differences and similarities, although I mainly talked about differences because there's little similarities.. oops im gonna go before i become mentally unstable and doubt myself even more

[waffles19]

no compare means differences and similarities, although I mainly talked about differences because there's little similarities.. oops im gonna go before i become mentally unstable and doubt myself even more

i agree!

[cltf]

What did you guys put for the 5 marker about avoiding precedent.. I said the position of the court affected if it could be avoided/ distinguishing but generally they follow it

sorry but it said if it had similar facts
therefore no distinguish i dont think

It was 5 marks.. so I said it they were starkly different? No idea though, hopefully they get my argument o.o

Similar doesn't mean it can't be distinguished. Sometimes cases are brought forth to court and they seem similar but they still manage to argue that it's different.

[bodriagin]

What did you guys put for the 5 marker about avoiding precedent.. I said the position of the court affected if it could be avoided/ distinguishing but generally they follow it

sorry but it said if it had similar facts
therefore no distinguish i dont think

It was 5 marks.. so I said it they were starkly different? No idea though, hopefully they get my argument o.o

Similar doesn't mean it can't be distinguished. Sometimes cases are brought forth to court and they seem similar but they still manage to argue that it's different.

I defined precedents (ratio decidendi of superior courts are binding on inferior courts in the same hierarchy) then went on to say that if the precedent was set in an inferior court, that the court wouldn't necessarily have to follow the existing precedent.

Then went on to talk about RODD and how it allows flexibility within the common law system (with an emphasis on distinguishing). I then concluded with a statement expressing that courts are limited to an extent but there are techniques that can assist in avoiding these limitations. Is this correct? :s