Post Exam Thoughts!

[Wazzup]

There should have been an extra 30 minutes, and majority of people would have gotten an A :p

Time made me panic and lose marks

[Tragesty]

Fair enough selim31, thanks for that.

And glad to hear others took a similiar approach to the last question.

I tried to somehow let the essay flow and wanted to incorporate the VLRC's role within the jury evaluation, but couldn't find a link!

So I just talked about the VLRC at the end, and thankfully also explained how it hears submissions from public, publishes discussion paper blahblahblah

[thechosen1]

for question 11 regarding civil pre-trial, what did it imply by effective access i wrote mainly on timely..

[charliea2012]

A good exam paper.

The big mistake that people have made is not referring to the stimulus material in the question about the new precedent.

You had to talk about how Magistrates and County Court judges would be bound by the precedent, due to it being set by the Supreme Court.

This question will catch out a lot of people who didn't properly read the question but instead just explained binding precedent and RODD.

The most difficult question, in my opinion, was having to relate pre-trial civil procedures to effective access. I mainly wrote about how the procedures required legal representation therefore the costs became high. I also mentioned how they could reduce a backlog of cases if they achieve their aims of parties conceding some points and even an out-of-court settlement occurring.

Was I the only one who mentioned referral of powers as a method of changing the division of law-making power between the Commonwealth and state parliaments? It appears everybody used the referendum process (fair enough, too).

[thechosen1]

for question 11 regarding civil pre-trial, what did it imply by effective access i wrote mainly on timely..

[selim31]

Fair enough selim31, thanks for that.

And glad to hear others took a similiar approach to the last question.

I tried to somehow let the essay flow and wanted to incorporate the VLRC's role within the jury evaluation, but couldn't find a link!
So I just talked about the VLRC at the end, and thankfully also explained how it hears submissions from public, publishes discussion paper blahblahblah

I don't understand why people say we had to mention the process used by VLRCt o influence change in the law, when in fact it asked for the ROLE :|

Edit:
 wrote VCAT instead of VLRC

[heyyoyoyo]

The big mistake that people have made is not referring to the stimulus material in the question about the new precedent.

You had to talk about how Magistrates and County Court judges would be bound by the precedent, due to it being set by the Supreme Court.

This question will catch out a lot of people he didn't properly read the question but instead just explain RODD.

The most difficult question, in my opinion, was having to relate pre-trial civil procedures to effective access. I mainly wrote about how the procedures required legal representation therefore the costs became high. I also mentioned how they could reduce a backlog of cases if they achieve their aims of parties conceding some points and even an out-of-court settlement occurring.

Was I the only one who mentioned referral of powers as a method of changing the division of law-making power between the Commonwealth and state parliaments? It appears everybody used the referendum process (fair enough, too).

No I used referral of power too! I just thought it was such an obvious link....
Ask my teacher afterwards and he said that is was completely correct to use either High Court, referendum or referral of power.

[playsimme]

A good exam paper.

The big mistake that people have made is not referring to the stimulus material in the question about the new precedent.

You had to talk about how Magistrates and County Court judges would be bound by the precedent, due to it being set by the Supreme Court.

This question will catch out a lot of people who didn't properly read the question but instead just explained binding precedent and RODD.

The most difficult question, in my opinion, was having to relate pre-trial civil procedures to effective access. I mainly wrote about how the procedures required legal representation therefore the costs became high. I also mentioned how they could reduce a backlog of cases if they achieve their aims of parties conceding some points and even an out-of-court settlement occurring.

Was I the only one who mentioned referral of powers as a method of changing the division of law-making power between the Commonwealth and state parliaments? It appears everybody used the referendum process (fair enough, too).

wait, what? O_O the previous question was related? but I just don't see how it's 5 marks for just stating it's binding. I think we coulda interpreted it our own way. I would've simply said they had to follow through, but seeing it was 5 bloody marks?

[charliea2012]

The big mistake that people have made is not referring to the stimulus material in the question about the new precedent.

You had to talk about how Magistrates and County Court judges would be bound by the precedent, due to it being set by the Supreme Court.

This question will catch out a lot of people he didn't properly read the question but instead just explain RODD.

The most difficult question, in my opinion, was having to relate pre-trial civil procedures to effective access. I mainly wrote about how the procedures required legal representation therefore the costs became high. I also mentioned how they could reduce a backlog of cases if they achieve their aims of parties conceding some points and even an out-of-court settlement occurring.

Was I the only one who mentioned referral of powers as a method of changing the division of law-making power between the Commonwealth and state parliaments? It appears everybody used the referendum process (fair enough, too).

No I used referral of power too! I just thought it was such an obvious link....
Ask my teacher afterwards and he said that is was completely correct to use either High Court, referendum or referral of power.

Yeah, the referral of powers was also much easier to analyse about the effects on the division of power. All you had to do was mention how there is still some uncertainty about whether the referred power is exclusive and whether the state(s) can revoke the power.

How did people justify the one level court system? I just wrote how a system of appeals and the doctrine of precedent would not operate effectively.

[charliea2012]

A good exam paper.

The big mistake that people have made is not referring to the stimulus material in the question about the new precedent.

You had to talk about how Magistrates and County Court judges would be bound by the precedent, due to it being set by the Supreme Court.

This question will catch out a lot of people who didn't properly read the question but instead just explained binding precedent and RODD.

The most difficult question, in my opinion, was having to relate pre-trial civil procedures to effective access. I mainly wrote about how the procedures required legal representation therefore the costs became high. I also mentioned how they could reduce a backlog of cases if they achieve their aims of parties conceding some points and even an out-of-court settlement occurring.

Was I the only one who mentioned referral of powers as a method of changing the division of law-making power between the Commonwealth and state parliaments? It appears everybody used the referendum process (fair enough, too).

wait, what? O_O the previous question was related? but I just don't see how it's 5 marks for just stating it's binding. I think we coulda interpreted it our own way. I would've simply said they had to follow through, but seeing it was 5 bloody marks?

Yeah it was question 8b. Don't worry, it will trick a lot of students and even if you don't refer to the stimulus, you'll still get some marks. But the question asked about the NEW PRECEDENT. This was the hint to look at the stimulus material provided.

[selim31]

The big mistake that people have made is not referring to the stimulus material in the question about the new precedent.

You had to talk about how Magistrates and County Court judges would be bound by the precedent, due to it being set by the Supreme Court.

This question will catch out a lot of people he didn't properly read the question but instead just explain RODD.

The most difficult question, in my opinion, was having to relate pre-trial civil procedures to effective access. I mainly wrote about how the procedures required legal representation therefore the costs became high. I also mentioned how they could reduce a backlog of cases if they achieve their aims of parties conceding some points and even an out-of-court settlement occurring.

Was I the only one who mentioned referral of powers as a method of changing the division of law-making power between the Commonwealth and state parliaments? It appears everybody used the referendum process (fair enough, too).

No I used referral of power too! I just thought it was such an obvious link....
Ask my teacher afterwards and he said that is was completely correct to use either High Court, referendum or referral of power.

Yeah, the referral of powers was also much easier to analyse about the effects on the division of power. All you had to do was mention how there is still some uncertainty about whether the referred power is exclusive and whether the state(s) can revoke the power.

How did people justify the one level court system? I just wrote how a system of appeals and the doctrine of precedent would not operate effectively.

IMO a court hierarchy should exist. Justified using appeals, and how appeals can add to fairness.

[playsimme]

What exactly did you write for 5 marks? Shit I hate this forum confidence killer arghghguhdfuhgiuh

[Tragesty]

I wasn't aware we had to answer according to the stimulus material - hell I dont even REMEMBER the stimulus material for the five marker for precedent, shame.

What exactly was the stimulus material? A couple sentences? I swear I can't remember reading it. Hope Im not the only one who just talked about binding/persusaive/rodd.

Yeah no kidding, talk about confidence killer! Ah well.

[selim31]

A good exam paper.

The big mistake that people have made is not referring to the stimulus material in the question about the new precedent.

You had to talk about how Magistrates and County Court judges would be bound by the precedent, due to it being set by the Supreme Court.

This question will catch out a lot of people who didn't properly read the question but instead just explained binding precedent and RODD.

The most difficult question, in my opinion, was having to relate pre-trial civil procedures to effective access. I mainly wrote about how the procedures required legal representation therefore the costs became high. I also mentioned how they could reduce a backlog of cases if they achieve their aims of parties conceding some points and even an out-of-court settlement occurring.

Was I the only one who mentioned referral of powers as a method of changing the division of law-making power between the Commonwealth and state parliaments? It appears everybody used the referendum process (fair enough, too).

wait, what? O_O the previous question was related? but I just don't see how it's 5 marks for just stating it's binding. I think we coulda interpreted it our own way. I would've simply said they had to follow through, but seeing it was 5 bloody marks?

Yeah it was question 8b. Don't worry, it will trick a lot of students and even if you don't refer to the stimulus, you'll still get some marks. But the question asked about the NEW PRECEDENT. This was the hint to look at the stimulus material provided.

I didn't exactly mention the Magistrates' Court but still said that LOWER courts would be severely restricted in law-making through precedent. 

[charliea2012]

I wasn't aware we had to answer according to the stimulus material - hell I dont even REMEMBER the stimulus material for the five marker for precedent, shame.

What exactly was the stimulus material? A couple sentences? I swear I can't remember reading it. Hope Im not the only one who just talked about binding/persusaive/rodd.

Yeah no kidding, talk about confidence killer! Ah well.

It said something like the following: The Trial Division of the Supreme Court recently established a new precedent.
Then there was 8a. about the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court then 8b. was the effect of the new precedent of judges' ability to make law.

Don't worry. You've showed the knowledge so should get at least 3 marks.