How did you go?

[sam-17]

I still maintain that it is disapproving
Both sub-divisions are part of the supreme court, just because they have different jurisidictions doesn't mean one is higher
It's the same place with the same judges
And if teh court of appeal was higher it wouldn't be part of the supreme court

Check out the link above. It says that even though its in the same court, the appellate division creates binding precedent

[Pa007]

I still maintain that it is disapproving
Both sub-divisions are part of the supreme court, just because they have different jurisidictions doesn't mean one is higher
It's the same place with the same judges
And if teh court of appeal was higher it wouldn't be part of the supreme court

Check out the link above. It says that even though its in the same court, the appellate division creates binding precedent

A DIRECT quote from the legal studies text book "The Court of appeal is part of the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice is a member of both courts"

[michak]

I still maintain that it is disapproving
Both sub-divisions are part of the supreme court, just because they have different jurisidictions doesn't mean one is higher
It's the same place with the same judges
And if teh court of appeal was higher it wouldn't be part of the supreme court

Check out the link above. It says that even though its in the same court, the appellate division creates binding precedent

A DIRECT quote from the legal studies text book "The Court of appeal is part of the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice is a member of both courts"

There you go if its in one of the textbooks that students study VCAA can't tell us we are wrong

[Jezza]

I still maintain that it is disapproving
Both sub-divisions are part of the supreme court, just because they have different jurisidictions doesn't mean one is higher
It's the same place with the same judges
And if teh court of appeal was higher it wouldn't be part of the supreme court

Yeah I wrote the same type of answer as yourself. Even though I didn't directly say it was disapproving, but I did imply it clearly and explained it. Would I lose a mark for not saying disapproving?

[sam-17]

I still maintain that it is disapproving
Both sub-divisions are part of the supreme court, just because they have different jurisidictions doesn't mean one is higher
It's the same place with the same judges
And if teh court of appeal was higher it wouldn't be part of the supreme court

Check out the link above. It says that even though its in the same court, the appellate division creates binding precedent

A DIRECT quote from the legal studies text book "The Court of appeal is part of the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice is a member of both courts"

That has nothing to do with the question though. The court of appeal is apart of the Supreme Court. Even if the chief justice is a member of both courts, the rulings made in appellate jurisdiction become binding. Eg. you have a case in trial division, it gets appealed on a point of law and the court of appeal reverses the decision made earlier in the trial division = a new precedent is set as it overrides the previous decision

[Pa007]

I still maintain that it is disapproving
Both sub-divisions are part of the supreme court, just because they have different jurisidictions doesn't mean one is higher
It's the same place with the same judges
And if teh court of appeal was higher it wouldn't be part of the supreme court

Check out the link above. It says that even though its in the same court, the appellate division creates binding precedent

A DIRECT quote from the legal studies text book "The Court of appeal is part of the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice is a member of both courts"

That has nothing to do with the question though. The court of appeal is apart of the Supreme Court. Even if the chief justice is a member of both courts, the rulings made in appellate jurisdiction become binding. Eg. you have a case in trial division, it gets appealed on a point of law and the court of appeal reverses the decision made earlier in the trial division = a new precedent is set as it overrides the previous decision

It has a whole lot to do with the question. If the judges work in both the trial court of appeals divisions then the precedent should be distinguished because they are of equal standing. Yes the court of appeals is higher though so I understand where you're coming from. But, I still regard it as being dissaproving because this division is only in the supreme court, the court of appeal is not a court in its own standing.

[RockyStarPro]

A direct quote from the Legal Studies textbook "The Court of Appeal, which is a division or part of the Supreme Court..." (p.134)

Disapproving should be a valid answer.

[Pa007]

A direct quote from the Legal Studies textbook "The Court of Appeal, which is a division or part of the Supreme Court..." (p.134)

Disapproving should be a valid answer.

Exactly. See this years exam is just full of amibiguities. I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned this was an odd exam which threw off even the brightest of students. Even my teacher stated said it was a strange exam considering 2011 was still pretty hard but much more straight foward.

[michak]

A direct quote from the Legal Studies textbook "The Court of Appeal, which is a division or part of the Supreme Court..." (p.134)

Disapproving should be a valid answer.

I agree mate
What i think might confuse people is that in the textbook i use (key concepts)
The hierarchy picture shows the court of appeal above the trial division but this is only to show that you can appeal from the trial division to teh court of appeal
However the differentiation only occurs within the court itself not in the entire hierarchy
If the court of appeal was higher it would be its own court and if you look anywhere it will tell you the Supreme Court is the highest in victoria not the court of appeal

[RockyStarPro]

A direct quote from the Legal Studies textbook "The Court of Appeal, which is a division or part of the Supreme Court..." (p.134)

Disapproving should be a valid answer.

I agree mate
What i think might confuse people is that in the textbook i use (key concepts)
The hierarchy picture shows the court of appeal above the trial division but this is only to show that you can appeal from the trial division to teh court of appeal
However the differentiation only occurs within the court itself not in the entire hierarchy
If the court of appeal was higher it would be its own court and if you look anywhere it will tell you the Supreme Court is the highest in victoria not the court of appeal

Agreed. That picture might throw people off side, but reading the section on the Court of Appeal should make it clear enough that the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal are in the same hierarchy.

A direct quote from the Legal Studies textbook "The Court of Appeal, which is a division or part of the Supreme Court..." (p.134)

Disapproving should be a valid answer.

Exactly. See this years exam is just full of amibiguities. I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned this was an odd exam which threw off even the brightest of students. Even my teacher stated said it was a strange exam considering 2011 was still pretty hard but much more straight foward.

Too true. The wording in this years exam was disgraceful. VCAA bombed out this year, just hope we don't lose marks because of their inability to construct an exam that asks clear questions

[sam-17]

A direct quote from the Legal Studies textbook "The Court of Appeal, which is a division or part of the Supreme Court..." (p.134)

Disapproving should be a valid answer.

I agree mate
What i think might confuse people is that in the textbook i use (key concepts)
The hierarchy picture shows the court of appeal above the trial division but this is only to show that you can appeal from the trial division to teh court of appeal
However the differentiation only occurs within the court itself not in the entire hierarchy
If the court of appeal was higher it would be its own court and if you look anywhere it will tell you the Supreme Court is the highest in victoria not the court of appeal

Agreed. That picture might throw people off side, but reading the section on the Court of Appeal should make it clear enough that the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal are in the same hierarchy.

A direct quote from the Legal Studies textbook "The Court of Appeal, which is a division or part of the Supreme Court..." (p.134)

Disapproving should be a valid answer.

Exactly. See this years exam is just full of amibiguities. I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned this was an odd exam which threw off even the brightest of students. Even my teacher stated said it was a strange exam considering 2011 was still pretty hard but much more straight foward.

Too true. The wording in this years exam was disgraceful. VCAA bombed out this year, just hope we don't lose marks because of their inability to construct an exam that asks clear questions

Guys even though its a "division or part", the Court of Appeal still imposes binding precedent on the Trial Division. That is in the Victorian Law Handbook. Yes, it is in the same jurisdiction and its the same court. I think this is also mentioned in the Justice and Outcomes textbook. Plus, an examiner mentioned this in the normal legal thread tonight.

[Chazef]

I also think there was too much doubling-up on content from the course. That 2 mark question (whether or not it was distinguishing of disapproving) required you to write the same thing later on in the question about the ability of courts to make law. Also, I believe the vcat/court question allowed for material to be re-used in the mediation question. Also really annoyed that I studied trial by peers and community values as the same damn strength, and of course the paper makes me consider them to be different for 6 marks, certainly wasn't ready for that.

[sam-17]

I also think there was too much doubling-up on content from the course. That 2 mark question (whether or not it was distinguishing of disapproving) required you to write the same thing later on in the question about the ability of courts to make law. Also, I believe the vcat/court question allowed for material to be re-used in the mediation question. Also really annoyed that I studied trial by peers and community values as the same damn strength, and of course the paper makes me consider them to be different for 6 marks, certainly wasn't ready for that.

the paper was very poorly written compared to last year

[RockyStarPro]

A direct quote from the Legal Studies textbook "The Court of Appeal, which is a division or part of the Supreme Court..." (p.134)

Disapproving should be a valid answer.

I agree mate
What i think might confuse people is that in the textbook i use (key concepts)
The hierarchy picture shows the court of appeal above the trial division but this is only to show that you can appeal from the trial division to teh court of appeal
However the differentiation only occurs within the court itself not in the entire hierarchy
If the court of appeal was higher it would be its own court and if you look anywhere it will tell you the Supreme Court is the highest in victoria not the court of appeal

Agreed. That picture might throw people off side, but reading the section on the Court of Appeal should make it clear enough that the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal are in the same hierarchy.

A direct quote from the Legal Studies textbook "The Court of Appeal, which is a division or part of the Supreme Court..." (p.134)

Disapproving should be a valid answer.

Exactly. See this years exam is just full of amibiguities. I'm sorry, but as far as I'm concerned this was an odd exam which threw off even the brightest of students. Even my teacher stated said it was a strange exam considering 2011 was still pretty hard but much more straight foward.

Too true. The wording in this years exam was disgraceful. VCAA bombed out this year, just hope we don't lose marks because of their inability to construct an exam that asks clear questions

Guys even though its a "division or part", the Court of Appeal still imposes binding precedent on the Trial Division. That is in the Victorian Law Handbook. Yes, it is in the same jurisdiction and its the same court. I think this is also mentioned in the Justice and Outcomes textbook. Plus, an examiner mentioned this in the normal legal thread tonight.

That's fair enough. However, would it be fair that VCAA took marks off people who wrote the Supreme Court could disapprove despite the book they prescribed saying that the Court of Appeal is a division or part of the Supreme Court? It'd be unfair that people suffer a loss of marks because VCAA done a poor job of wording their questions

[oizoo]

Wouldn't distinguishing be the safe answer in this case?