Post Exam Thoughts!

[Wazzup]

What ever you wrote, thats whats going to be assessed no point getting angry now

Life goes on...

By the way, when we get our results what will it say?

Would it say the percentage, or the Grade or satisfactory or what?

[Tragesty]

Oh damn! I didn't realise the question was a part a and b (seriously stupid of me).

I thought if full marks are required from stimulus material, the question must state 'referring to the above statement/previous statement' etcetc? I just talked about generally how courts have to follow precedent, to an extent - I linked it back to the original question, not the stimulus.

Part of me thinks I should hide from atarnotes' legal threads to avoid further crushing my hopes.

[selim31]

Honestly, I think it's a bit pathetic of VCAA to mark us down for not referring to the stimulus material, especially if we perfectly responded by explaining RODD and binding precedent.

[cltf]

Damn you're all year 11s that actually studied
GG to my 45+ SS
Half of the yr 12s at may school crammed last minute for this exam xD So burnt out....wahhh

[Tragesty]

Isn't it all relative? If many people didn't respond to the stimulus material, or many people struggled with the access question, the cut off is lower due to students struggle with the questions, and losing marks - and not finishing? (just assuming here)

[Wazzup]

Theres wasnt much on criminal law.. bail... sanctions etc
Studied stuff for nothing. Oh well.

[I-Banking]

With the precedent question, I did relate briefly to the fact the for example County Court judges would be bound by the precedent. However, I didn't explain all of RODD because it wasn't all relevant. Distinguishing can't be used as it says in the question 'where the material facts are similar'. Disapproving can't be used as it doesn't influence a judge's ability to follow it or not. I only explained the more superior judges could overrule the precedent. Therefore, not all of RODD is needed.

Also, I mentioned that parliament could abrogate or confirm the precedent and explained how they would then have to or not have to follow this precedent. (limitation on law-making by courts)

[Tragesty]

Nothing on bail, remand, civil remies, stages of a bill through parliament (god damnit studied for that!), reasons why laws may need to change, structure of parliament (lower/upper house roles), not much about reforms.

Then again, you can only write so much and test so much in 2 hours.

[selim31]

Theres wasnt much on criminal law.. bail... sanctions etc
Studied stuff for nothing. Oh well.

 yea there was more than enough on the Constitution and the ability of courts to make law though

[playsimme]

The thing is it was 5 F*ING MARKS! If we can't use distinguishing, overulling( due to the stimulus) reversing (due to the stimulus) then how the hell do we muster up 5 marks? I'd bullshit heaps but knowing vcaa hates bullshit I tried to answer the question using external knowledge. I hate that question

[I-Banking]

my 5 marks:

Judges are bound to follow it:
- Binding on lower courts in the same hierachy (e.g. County Court)
- Judges may decide to uphold it even if the precedent is only persuasive to them in order to uphold the concept of consistency and certainty

Judges are not bound:
- may be overruled by more superior judges in the same hierachy (new precedent established)
- parliament can abrogate the precedent in an act meaning that future judges must follow the act and not the precedent
- Judges in a different hierachy will not have to follow the precedent regardless of the superiority

[Tragesty]

My answer included:

Judges bound to follow precedent if it's binding precedent (binding precedent is from higher courts blahblahblah)

Judges don't have to follow precedent if it's persuasive precedent (obiter dictum statements etcetc)

Judges can also avoid precedent through reversing a case on appeal, overrule lower court's decision, distinguish (although after I finished explaining distinguish I looked back at the question and was like oh shi-, nevermind)

3/5?

[playsimme]

OMFG AHA! YOU COULD TALK ABOUT OVERULLING AND SHIEZ BECAUSE THE SUPREME COURT IS NOT THE HIGHEST IN AUSTRALIA ! HIGH COURT! hehehehehe nvm probs still f*cked up but still

[I-Banking]

Can anyone exactly remember what the 8 mark question said. I know that i said to compare VCAT and the Courts, which I did in 4 marks, but there was a second part to it also I think.

I didn't have much trouble with this question, but now I've forgotten what it actually said, so just want clarification

[bdjung]

You guys do realise that the question: Evaluate two weaknesses of parliament as a law maker; means to look at the strengths and weaknesses of a two weaknesses right? i think a lot of people stuffed this one up.