Exam question

[Outclass]

One of the first few questions threw me off, went something along the lines of;

Explain why the supreme Court (court of appeal) would not have to follow previous precedents made in the same court.

Would that be distinguish or disapproval? Or both?
 

[NickGeo34]

I wrote something along the lines of that courts of equal standing are not bound by their own decisions as the precedent they make isn't binding on themselves, however they usually follow their previous decisions due to Stare Decisis. I heard a few other people write that the material facts of cases may differ so there was no need to follow decisions as they weren't applicable.

[xxbubblegum5]

I wrote something like courts in the same level are not bound by precedent hence, they do not need to follow the decisions.

[bushyak]

This one threw a lot of people off. I wrote something along the lines of the court not being bound by its own precedent... I know others wrote down disapproving? Not really sure but I hope they'd give at least a mark anyway

[lloyd18]

This one threw a lot of people off. I wrote something along the lines of the court not being bound by its own precedent... I know others wrote down disapproving? Not really sure but I hope they'd give at least a mark anyway

you are right, writing dissaproving or any other means through which precdents are avoided is wrong, what you have to respond is that due to the court being at the same level of the hierarchy they are not bound by any precedents and thus do not have to follow previous decisions.

[lloyd18]

One of the first few questions threw me off, went something along the lines of;

Explain why the supreme Court (court of appeal) would not have to follow previous precedents made in the same court.

Would that be distinguish or disapproval? Or both?

neither buddy, you have to speak about the fact that they are at the same level of the hierarchy and thus no precdent set is binding, and thus they do not have to follow decisions that are made, and may only be persuaded (persuasive precedent)

[mattbrown19]

I think VCAA would still pay marks if you said distinguish or disapprove. They're really lenient on technicalities, to be honest.

[lloyd18]

I think VCAA would still pay marks if you said distinguish or disapprove. They're really lenient on technicalities, to be honest.

hope so for people who wrote that, but not sure cause it was a pretty easy exam so they will be tough

[akeergar]

generally speaking the exam was comparatively easier than previous years. No precedent no court vs parliament. Nothing spectacular but I did feel there was a lot more required. Answers appeared easy so required a lot of depth and discussion plus a lot more higher mark questions (5,7,8,10) then usual.

[rach95]

For the last question, I evaluated the adversary system as a whole in relation to how it contributes to the element of a fair and unbiased hearing/ detracts from it. and within that also compared 2 features (role of judge and strict rules of evidence and procedure) to the inquisitorial system. Was that what was required?? Or was it only to discuss the comparisons between 2 features of inquisitorial and adversarial? Seems like that would be too little for a 10 marker...

[EstherR]

neither buddy, you have to speak about the fact that they are at the same level of the hierarchy and thus no precdent set is binding, and thus they do not have to follow decisions that are made, and may only be persuaded (persuasive precedent)

hmmm, well i said that  it does not bound to follow it's own decisions as it is the highest court in the hierarchy and can overrule the decisions it has previously made... it seemed right to be because thats what courts do when they develop precedent and when i asked my teacher she said that was a good answer... but now im having second thoughts?

[Outclass]

hmmm, well i said that  it does not bound to follow it's own decisions as it is the highest court in the hierarchy and can overrule the decisions it has previously made... it seemed right to be because thats what courts do when they develop precedent and when i asked my teacher she said that was a good answer... but now im having second thoughts?

I thought the High Court was the highest?

[EstherR]

I thought the High Court was the highest?

sorry, i meant the victorian court hierarchy! my bad!

[megjennings]

There was a similar question a year or two ago (can't remember exactly) where a lot of students had thought it was disapproving but it was actually distinguishing. Safest option would have been distinguishing, I think.