How did you go?

[sadboy222]

Yes you will since it referred to high court cases, america is really irrelevant to that question as it only asks for Australia. You need to discuss a case not what is apart of American law

But i explained structural, entreched, implied rights + referendum + 1 high court case

than at the end i said however australia's protection of rights is not perfect, as they do not have a bill of rights such as usa

will i lose alot of marks?

You are only required to discussed the structural protection of rights and referendum not in detail though and provide a example of a case protecting rights and if you did you will be awarded marks. If you discussed how rights were protected in that case and how section 128 provides protection of rights then you will be fine.

Couldn't you mention implied rights also as the prominent case that protected our constitution rights (Australian Capital Television v. the Commonwealth) established our implied right to freedom of political communication.

But it referred to structural protection of rights so I would really assume that it strictly is only structural protection of rights cases like Roach Case. I don't know that this is true and I really hope this is not the case

How did it refer to structural protection?

[Dejan]

what did you guys talk about for the VLRC question?

I mentioned about investigations, having people opinions that's it lmao

[RockyStarPro]

Please tell me the first question was Royal Assent. If it wasn't, then FML

[Dejan]

Yes you will since it referred to high court cases, america is really irrelevant to that question as it only asks for Australia. You need to discuss a case not what is apart of American law

But i explained structural, entreched, implied rights + referendum + 1 high court case

than at the end i said however australia's protection of rights is not perfect, as they do not have a bill of rights such as usa

will i lose alot of marks?

You are only required to discussed the structural protection of rights and referendum not in detail though and provide a example of a case protecting rights and if you did you will be awarded marks. If you discussed how rights were protected in that case and how section 128 provides protection of rights then you will be fine.

Couldn't you mention implied rights also as the prominent case that protected our constitution rights (Australian Capital Television v. the Commonwealth) established our implied right to freedom of political communication.

But it referred to structural protection of rights so I would really assume that it strictly is only structural protection of rights cases like Roach Case. I don't know that this is true and I really hope this is not the case

How did it refer to structural protection?

It explicitly said "structural protection of rights" from memory

[Dejan]

Please tell me the first question was Royal Assent. If it wasn't, then FML

I think it was proclamation

[sadboy222]

Yes you will since it referred to high court cases, america is really irrelevant to that question as it only asks for Australia. You need to discuss a case not what is apart of American law

But i explained structural, entreched, implied rights + referendum + 1 high court case

than at the end i said however australia's protection of rights is not perfect, as they do not have a bill of rights such as usa

will i lose alot of marks?

You are only required to discussed the structural protection of rights and referendum not in detail though and provide a example of a case protecting rights and if you did you will be awarded marks. If you discussed how rights were protected in that case and how section 128 provides protection of rights then you will be fine.

Couldn't you mention implied rights also as the prominent case that protected our constitution rights (Australian Capital Television v. the Commonwealth) established our implied right to freedom of political communication.

But it referred to structural protection of rights so I would really assume that it strictly is only structural protection of rights cases like Roach Case. I don't know that this is true and I really hope this is not the case

How did it refer to structural protection?

It explicitly said "structural protection of rights" from memory

are we talking about the 10marker?

lolwat 10 marks on structural protection?

[cccc]

it was royal assent, proclamation is when a date is set for the law to become effective, nothing suggested a date and it mentioned it being assented therefore royal assent

[Dejan]

Yes you will since it referred to high court cases, america is really irrelevant to that question as it only asks for Australia. You need to discuss a case not what is apart of American law

But i explained structural, entreched, implied rights + referendum + 1 high court case

than at the end i said however australia's protection of rights is not perfect, as they do not have a bill of rights such as usa

will i lose alot of marks?

You are only required to discussed the structural protection of rights and referendum not in detail though and provide a example of a case protecting rights and if you did you will be awarded marks. If you discussed how rights were protected in that case and how section 128 provides protection of rights then you will be fine.

Couldn't you mention implied rights also as the prominent case that protected our constitution rights (Australian Capital Television v. the Commonwealth) established our implied right to freedom of political communication.

But it referred to structural protection of rights so I would really assume that it strictly is only structural protection of rights cases like Roach Case. I don't know that this is true and I really hope this is not the case

How did it refer to structural protection?

It explicitly said "structural protection of rights" from memory

are we talking about the 10marker?

lolwat 10 marks on structural protection?

Yeah lmao that's what I have been talking about the whole time... unless you're talking about another question lololololololol 

[Eeb]

Looking through my books it seems like it was proclamation

[Dejan]

it was royal assent, proclamation is when a date is set for the law to become effective, nothing suggested a date and it mentioned it being assented therefore royal assent

If it didn't mention the date ( I think it didn't) then you're right

[Dejan]

Looking through my books it seems like it was proclamation

This was a tricky question to be honest , didn't even answer it

[himesh95]

Please tell me the first question was Royal Assent. If it wasn't, then FML

100% sure it was royal assent

[sadboy222]

Please tell me the first question was Royal Assent. If it wasn't, then FML

100% sure it was royal assent

my legal teacher said it was proclomation fuuu

[Dejan]

So guys how did you find the exam? Easy? Hard? For me, it was really easy and I didn't study

[RockyStarPro]

Yeah I think it was proclamation. Damn!!!