How did you go?

[ThyJovan]

Not sure about the US comparison, you could of used it when talking about the lack of express rights, I'm not too sure. Found the last few questions quite... open?

Had a bit of trouble at juries, but I think I did good. Almost laughed during reading time, a lot of it was fairly straight forward.

[akmaljamal]

pretty sure in the courts changing law you could talk about statutory interpretation as well. like narrowing (studded belt) influencing parliament(trigwell) etc.

[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.

[Dejan]

pretty sure in the courts changing law you could talk about statutory interpretation as well. like narrowing (studded belt) influencing parliament(trigwell) etc.

That also could be included

[sadboy222]

im probably just overthinking it ahh well


i get 40+ so be it
i get 35+ so be it

whatever, no more court cases!

[sam-17]

What did everyone put for the first question? I skimmed over the excerpt and put that it was proclamation. Some people have said that royal assent isn't really published in the Government Gazette?

[Dejan]

I thought assesor's dont deduct marks they just dont give you marks for incorrect answers?

If you gave an incorrect response that does not relate towards the question then you will not awarded any marks 

[ThyJovan]

It was definitely royal assent.

[Hannah_Banana]

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.

[Dejan]

What did everyone put for the first question? I skimmed over the excerpt and put that it was proclamation. Some people have said that royal assent isn't really published in the Government Gazette?

From what I heard, it was the proclamation not the royal assent

[sadboy222]

can't believe it was proclamation what a trick!

[sam-17]

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) was an implied right

Yes you should have mentioned implied rights aswell hence the case - you would have said that the High Court can continue to imply rights thus continue to ensure rights are protected.

[Dejan]

im probably just overthinking it ahh well


i get 40+ so be it
i get 35+ so be it

whatever, no more court cases!

Don't over think it, you may be putting yourself down for nothing, don't stress over it as you may have done better than what you think you did, what has been done is done, you can't do anything about it

[sadboy222]

what did you guys talk about for the VLRC question?

[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