Post Exam Thoughts!

[selim31]

Where's EPL when you need him...

I can e-mail my teacher if you like and post her response? Awesome teacher, and she used be a VCAA assessor.

[lukew]

Where's EPL when you need him...

I can e-mail my teacher if you like and post her response?

Thanks but nah no problem, I can ask my teacher at some point. TBH What's done is done and I'm slowly not caring about LS anymore, all methods and physics for my yr 11 exams tonight.

[thechosen1]

guys, with question that asked for 2 other ways in which rights are protected what did everyonelse put other than express rights?

[frenchie]

implied rights

[Tragesty]

Just went to VCAT's website - in one of their (rather boring) videos, they state all VCAT decisions are legally enforceable and must be complied with.

God damn it, why didn't I ever notice this.

[heyyoyoyo]

for the constitutional and how they protect australia's rights, could have you written through exclusive powers that allow parliament to legislate on areas of law i.e. anti-descrimination law? and then through external affair s.51 (v) so that parliament can sign international treaties such as the Universal declaration of human rights.?

[iloveschool]

my book (making and breaking the law) says that arbitration results in a binding decision, whereas mediation and concilliation are not, unless incorperated into an order by the courts. so either way if u say they are or are not then u are correct both ways, but may needed to mention the conditions of it being binding or not binding

it would be unwise for vcaa to mark incorrectly if a text book gives certain information, because if mediation and concilliation circumstances change while we are in the current study design we dont know so shouldnt be penalised

[Tragesty]

It's rather confusing to me. M/C aren't legally binding, as stated in several legal textbooks, yet binding when used in VCAT, yet in none of the textbooks does it mention 'not legally binding, unless through VCAT.' so no idea what VCAA will deem appropriate. Meh, what's done is done.

heyyoyoyo, that's an interesting approach to the question, never seen that before. Usually people just discuss express and implies rights as well as structural protection when talking about constitutional protection of rights.

[ttrai]

Oh my God, i think i did really bad on this exam now that i saw on this forum the answers people wrote for the questions...i think i got at least 4 wrong...For i the pretrial question i didn't mention anything about the actual pre-trials and for the recent change i mentioned something that was completely out  of this world; something about a commitments act or something, for the eight mark question, i don't even know what i wrote and lastly, for the referendum question i don't think i added an example or anything:'(
Sigh, i can't believe it's now that i'm feeling bad about my exam; i was actually fine when i came out of the exam room...super delayed reaction...

[I-Banking]

I didn't do an example for the last question...it was about juries, no example of a case is required at all

[iloveschool]

@ I-Banking thanks for confirming that i was worried for a moment :p

[BumbaBritt]

With the last question, so many people I was talking to said  they didn't mention VLRC that much, but didn't it specifically ask to do so? I kinda weaved all their processes into my answer sort of thing but from what people in my class have said, no one did this! they all explained why the Jury should not be abolished and then seperately wrote what the process of VLRC is. So was I way off the mark or is everyone else in my class off? haha I thought I was being clever by weaving their process in with my answer but I didn't think we were supposed to explain VLRC seperately, now I'm feeling like a fail whale 

[Zafaraaaa]

With the last question, so many people I was talking to said  they didn't mention VLRC that much, but didn't it specifically ask to do so? I kinda weaved all their processes into my answer sort of thing but from what people in my class have said, no one did this! they all explained why the Jury should not be abolished and then seperately wrote what the process of VLRC is. So was I way off the mark or is everyone else in my class off? haha I thought I was being clever by weaving their process in with my answer but I didn't think we were supposed to explain VLRC seperately, now I'm feeling like a fail whale 

For the VLRC questioning, by explaining the "role", they expect you to explain the steps which VLRC uses to enable law reform (example, consulting professionals, inviting submissions bla bla bla)

[BumbaBritt]

With the last question, so many people I was talking to said  they didn't mention VLRC that much, but didn't it specifically ask to do so? I kinda weaved all their processes into my answer sort of thing but from what people in my class have said, no one did this! they all explained why the Jury should not be abolished and then seperately wrote what the process of VLRC is. So was I way off the mark or is everyone else in my class off? haha I thought I was being clever by weaving their process in with my answer but I didn't think we were supposed to explain VLRC seperately, now I'm feeling like a fail whale 

For the VLRC questioning, by explaining the "role", they expect you to explain the steps which VLRC uses to enable law reform (example, consulting professionals, inviting submissions bla bla bla)

Oh Thank god, yeah I did that, I mentioned their whole process and everything, I was just worried that I wasn't supposed to do it because so many people in my class left it out or forgot to mention the process, their loss then I guess haha thanks for the help 

[selim31]

It's rather confusing to me. M/C aren't legally binding, as stated in several legal textbooks, yet binding when used in VCAT, yet in none of the textbooks does it mention 'not legally binding, unless through VCAT.' so no idea what VCAA will deem appropriate. Meh, what's done is done.

Justice and Outcome
pg. 314 Evaluation of the operation of courts and VCAT.

'the decisions are legally binding on the parties'.

On another note: I was probably a big F to the Assessors, because instead of writing the full name Victorian civil and administrative Tribunal, I kept writing 'this Tribunal' which always referred to VCAT.