Do we need to know this?

[k.tse]

I know we need to know the 'role' of the VLRC, but do we need to know the process for this and an example?

Because if we don't, then I wont have to memorize it - and for me, one less thing to memorize will be great.

EDIT: Thanks for your answers on the first question on the VLRC guys! I have another question though... do we need to know the "Enforcement of rights in Australia" and the ways of "developing a precedent"? They both aren't on the study design but for some reason, I feel like they might ask something like this. :|

[Jezza]

I know we need to know the 'role' of the VLRC, but do we need to know the process for this and an example?

Because if we don't, then I wont have to memorize it - and for me, one less thing to memorize will be great.

Well depending on the context of the question, but the VLRC questions I've seen in the past suggest you have to briefly discuss the process of what the VLRC does when it investigates areas of law and an example to accompany that would be crucial in obtaining full marks.

[Dejan]

Process, role and example of an area of the law they investigated just like Jezza said

[sunintherain]

Yea I think you should, although it isn't in the study design specifically, i remember reading somewhere on the study design that people should know in addition to the topic or issue, strengths and weaknesses, processes and examples.  I think i'm right in assuming you do need to know, because with informal pressures for change, the study design doesn't say you need to know about the strengths or weakness, nor examples of them yet I've seen numerous practice exam questions which ask to evaluate and give examples of how individuals can influence change.

[Dejan]

Yea I think you should, although it isn't in the study design specifically, i remember reading somewhere on the study design that people should know in addition to the topic or issue, strengths and weaknesses, processes and examples.  I think i'm right in assuming you do need to know, because with informal pressures for change, the study design doesn't say you need to know about the strengths or weakness, nor examples of them yet I've seen numerous practice exam questions which ask to evaluate and give examples of how individuals can influence change.

Whatever is on the study design is what you can be tested on the exam however what ever isn't on the study design can't be tested

[meganrobyn]

Yea I think you should, although it isn't in the study design specifically, i remember reading somewhere on the study design that people should know in addition to the topic or issue, strengths and weaknesses, processes and examples.  I think i'm right in assuming you do need to know, because with informal pressures for change, the study design doesn't say you need to know about the strengths or weakness, nor examples of them yet I've seen numerous practice exam questions which ask to evaluate and give examples of how individuals can influence change.

Whatever is on the study design is what you can be tested on the exam however what ever isn't on the study design can't be tested

The SD can be a bit ambiguous, though. For example, it doesn't say you need strengths and weaknesses for some things, however an overriding key *skill* is evaluation. So bang, there are your strengths and weaknesses!

In terms of the VLRC I don't think S&W are likely, but a little bit of process info is definitely part of the role. How they do what they do.

[sunintherain]

^ key skills that's were i read it

[k.tse]

Thanks for your answers on the first question on the VLRC guys! I have another question though... do we need to know the "Enforcement of rights in Australia" and the ways of "developing a precedent"? They both aren't on the study design but for some reason, I feel like they might ask something like this. :|

[michak]

Thanks for your answers on the first question on the VLRC guys! I have another question though... do we need to know the "Enforcement of rights in Australia" and the ways of "developing a precedent"? They both aren't on the study design but for some reason, I feel like they might ask something like this. :|

Enforcement of rights - you need to know that the express rights, implied right and structural protections are all fully enforceable by the high court, meaning if a relevant case is brought forward questioning a piece of legislation the HC can delcare the legislation invalid if it infringes on the rights
Developing a precedent - by this i think you mean whether or not a judge decides to follow a precedent, when they recieve a case they will investigate current precedents (if any) and decide whetehr they have to follow it or not (eg. disapproving). If there is no precedent they will look at interpreting legislation to come to the decision

Hopefully that is what you meant, let me know if it wasn't