How did you go?

[connej]

Number of judges. Number wins. Same as the Full Bench is higher than the Full Court of the HCA even though it's exactly the same people. If the CoA wasn't higher you couldn't appeal there.

disagree

Well, that's nice - but it's still correct.

Wait so, Megan what's the answer haha? Does that mean disapproving won't be accepted?

I thought distinguishing and disapproving could both be accepted?

[michak]

Number of judges. Number wins. Same as the Full Bench is higher than the Full Court of the HCA even though it's exactly the same people. If the CoA wasn't higher you couldn't appeal there.

disagree

Well, that's nice - but it's still correct.

Wait so, Megan what's the answer haha? Does that mean disapproving won't be accepted?

I thought distinguishing and disapproving could both be accepted?

I think what it will come down to is how well you explained your reasoning

[ktrah]

What if you didn't actually say disapproving (if they accept that) but you explained what it was?

[meganrobyn]

Number of judges. Number wins. Same as the Full Bench is higher than the Full Court of the HCA even though it's exactly the same people. If the CoA wasn't higher you couldn't appeal there.

disagree

Well, that's nice - but it's still correct.

Wait so, Megan what's the answer haha? Does that mean disapproving won't be accepted?

I absolutely can't predict what the Chief Assessor will decide, but we can say that disapproving should not be accepted. The TD could disapprove in its obiter, but it would still be bound to follow.

Logically, if the CoA doesn't bind the TD, then it can't overrule or reverse it either. See what I mean?

[michak]

Number of judges. Number wins. Same as the Full Bench is higher than the Full Court of the HCA even though it's exactly the same people. If the CoA wasn't higher you couldn't appeal there.

disagree

Well, that's nice - but it's still correct.

Wait so, Megan what's the answer haha? Does that mean disapproving won't be accepted?

I absolutely can't predict what the Chief Assessor will decide, but we can say that disapproving should not be accepted. The TD could disapprove in its obiter, but it would still be bound to follow.

Logically, if the CoA doesn't bind the TD, then it can't overrule or reverse it either. See what I mean?

Megan: so why are we taught they are on the same level? so we have been taught wrong the whole year?
So megan, when will disapproving be used?

[ktrah]

I absolutely can't predict what the Chief Assessor will decide, but we can say that disapproving should not be accepted. The TD could disapprove in its obiter, but it would still be bound to follow.
Logically, if the CoA doesn't bind the TD, then it can't overrule or reverse it either. See what I mean?

Ah k, yep thanks.

So megan, when will disapproving be used?

I believe disapproving's used in the same court.

[meganrobyn]

Number of judges. Number wins. Same as the Full Bench is higher than the Full Court of the HCA even though it's exactly the same people. If the CoA wasn't higher you couldn't appeal there.

disagree

Well, that's nice - but it's still correct.

Wait so, Megan what's the answer haha? Does that mean disapproving won't be accepted?

I absolutely can't predict what the Chief Assessor will decide, but we can say that disapproving should not be accepted. The TD could disapprove in its obiter, but it would still be bound to follow.

Logically, if the CoA doesn't bind the TD, then it can't overrule or reverse it either. See what I mean?

Megan: so why are we taught they are on the same level? so we have been taught wrong the whole year?
So megan, when will disapproving be used?

I don't know, I'm so sorry

They are part of the same court, but they're not on the same level. Number always wins - just like within the HCA.

Disapproving is used in the obiter of a lower court when they are a bound by a precedent but wish to criticise it (or technically any court that disapproves and wants to criticise, even if they have the power to overrule but choose not to for the sake of consistency). Alternatively, if a TD precedent (like the Studded Belt Case) was argued before a later TD case, or a CoA precedent was argued before a later CoA case, etc, they would not be bound.

[ktrah]

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.

I did that too!!! So annoying. Didn't know what to write for the peers, what were you meant to write?

[michak]

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.

I did that too!!! So annoying. Didn't know what to write for the peers, what were you meant to write?

For the trialled by your peers i talked about how not all people would be because some people are ineligible, disqualified or excused from jury duty, for example - if a police officer was on trial they wouldn't be trialled by people in the same profession maybe
For the cross section one i said it may not be a true cross section because during the empanellment process each sides get challenges so they can determine who sits on teh jury for example they could try and get all men or all women which isn't a cross section of the community

[RockyStarPro]

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.

I did that too!!! So annoying. Didn't know what to write for the peers, what were you meant to write?

For the trialled by your peers i talked about how not all people would be because some people are ineligible, disqualified or excused from jury duty, for example - if a police officer was on trial they wouldn't be trialled by people in the same profession maybe
For the cross section one i said it may not be a true cross section because during the empanellment process each sides get challenges so they can determine who sits on teh jury for example they could try and get all men or all women which isn't a cross section of the community

That would be the weakness of the jury system not representing a true cross-section of the community.

[Eeb]

Basically disapproving could be used in a real life situation. The trial division would express disapproval of the precedent set in the court of appeal. However, all disapproving does is indicate to parties they might have success if the appeal the case (as the cannot change precedent by a higher court can) or indicate to parliament they should consider legislating to abolish the outdated/no longer fitting precedent. The judge in the trial division is still bound to follow that precedent,so imo disapproving is not an appropriate answer to the question

[michak]

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.

I did that too!!! So annoying. Didn't know what to write for the peers, what were you meant to write?

For the trialled by your peers i talked about how not all people would be because some people are ineligible, disqualified or excused from jury duty, for example - if a police officer was on trial they wouldn't be trialled by people in the same profession maybe
For the cross section one i said it may not be a true cross section because during the empanellment process each sides get challenges so they can determine who sits on teh jury for example they could try and get all men or all women which isn't a cross section of the community

That would be the weakness of the jury system not representing a true cross-section of the community.

Sorry i didn't make it clear
Those were by weaknesses and my answers for when we wouldn't be judged by our peers and when it may not be a true cross section of the community

Sorry guys

[Hannah_Banana]

For that question I had a trial by one's peers means that the case is not assessed in legalistic terms but rather along community values and guidelines. However there may be conflicting views in society therefore a trial by jury does not represent the views of the majority of people etc
Then of course the strengths and weaknesses of the jury being a cross-section of the community due to liability etc

[daniela.darienzo]

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.

I did that too!!! So annoying. Didn't know what to write for the peers, what were you meant to write?

For the trialled by your peers i talked about how not all people would be because some people are ineligible, disqualified or excused from jury duty, for example - if a police officer was on trial they wouldn't be trialled by people in the same profession maybe
For the cross section one i said it may not be a true cross section because during the empanellment process each sides get challenges so they can determine who sits on teh jury for example they could try and get all men or all women which isn't a cross section of the community

That would be the weakness of the jury system not representing a true cross-section of the community.

For the trialled by your peers i talked about how the members of the jury are normal people just like the accused so they will make a decision that is fair.. They are ordinary people who are not prejudiced by past experiences with the operation of the legal system. They aren't bound by the rules of precedent and provide a fresh view of how the law should be applied to a set of circumstances. However, because they are ordinary people, they do not understand the rules of evidence and procedure. They are not trained and just expected to understand and appreciate the adversary system.. something like that.

And for cross section of the community, I said that they reflect the views and values of the community and can make a decision in accordance with the attitudes of the time. They act as a barometer of social norms, values and opinions.. and then, how it isn't always a cross section as they can be disqualified, ineligible, and excused, as well as the challenges allowing some people not to have to do their duty. So it wasn't truly a cross section, and many people's views are left out.

[casbanjo]

  Guys, WTF were you supposed to write about in the VLRC question?
Nobody in my class knew how to get 7 marks for that one.