legal vce exam answers

[lloyd18]

i have a copy of the exam and i did legal last year getting a 50, so im happy to answer any questions or clarify any uncertain aspects of the exam
just ask a question and ill reply ASAP

[Outclass]

Question 1b!

[Ozil]

To get 3 marks on the question on overriding the Supreme Court what did you have to state?
I think I said it was incorrect due to abrogation then went into a bit of detail on that and used an example.

[lloyd18]

Question 1b!

lots of people got this question confused and thats understandable because the past few years this has been an aera of study that has been shown to trouble students.
the answer is that court of appeal doesnt have to follow their own decsions because they are obv on the same level of the court hierarchy, and thus there is no binding precedent, only persuasive, hence the court does not have to follow previous precdents ste by the court of appeal

[Outclass]

lots of people got this question confused and thats understandable because the past few years this has been an aera of study that has been shown to trouble students.
the answer is that court of appeal doesnt have to follow their own decsions because they are obv on the same level of the court hierarchy, and thus there is no binding precedent, only persuasive, hence the court does not have to follow previous precdents ste by the court of appeal

So absolutely no marks for saying distinguishing the facts?

[lloyd18]

To get 3 marks on the question on overriding the Supreme Court what did you have to state?
I think I said it was incorrect due to abrogation then went into a bit of detail on that and used an example.

one mark stating that it is incorrect, then you would have to say why, i would say because the parliament is the supreme law making body and can abrogate law made by courts, besides high court, this is because parliament created the courts through legislation creating their jurisdiction and thus has control, whereas the high court was established by the constitution.\
essentially saying its incorrect, and saying parliament as the supreme law making body can abrogate common law will get you three marks

[lloyd18]

To get 3 marks on the question on overriding the Supreme Court what did you have to state?
I think I said it was incorrect due to abrogation then went into a bit of detail on that and used an example.

btw
 according to what you said you shoudl get the three

[Ozil]

Ok sweet, thank you!
Personally what did you think of the paper compared to previous years?

[lloyd18]

So absolutely no marks for saying distinguishing the facts?

i do not believe so because if you think about it logically the court of appeal wouldnt have to distinguish between a precedent, because they are not bound, they do not have to follow the precdent so there is no reason for the judge to show the material facts are disimilar. do you get me?

[Outclass]

Oh and also, the question that covers impact of referendum and high court interpretations 8 marks

[sam.utute]

i have a copy of the exam and i did legal last year getting a 50, so im happy to answer any questions or clarify any uncertain aspects of the exam
just ask a question and ill reply ASAP

Any chance you could upload your copy of the exam? Am really keen to see what the exam was like.

[Outclass]

i do not believe so because if you think about it logically the court of appeal wouldnt have to distinguish between a precedent, because they are not bound, they do not have to follow the precdent so there is no reason for the judge to show the material facts are disimilar. do you get me?

Yeah makes sense, cheers

[lloyd18]

Ok sweet, thank you!
Personally what did you think of the paper compared to previous years?

yeh i would of loved to have it, however because it was pretty easy, it will make it harder to get the really high marks because any silly mistake may lose you a few points

[lloyd18]

Oh and also, the question that covers impact of referendum and high court interpretations 8 marks

basically two marks for one strength and one weakness as it says analyze the impact and two marks for an example, that is 4 marks so do the same for high court and theres your 8
i would use 1967 aborigines and for high court interpretation i would use Brislans case
basically state how both impacted, eg aborigines- it shifted division of powers to the comm allowing them to move into an area of law that was a residual power and legislate in regards to aboriginals.
does that help?

[Outclass]

basically two marks for one strength and one weakness as it says analyze the impact and two marks for an example, that is 4 marks so do the same for high court and theres your 8
i would use 1967 aborigines and for high court interpretation i would use Brislans case
basically state how both impacted, eg aborigines- it shifted division of powers to the comm allowing them to move into an area of law that was a residual power and legislate in regards to aboriginals.
does that help?

I did that. I did read the analyse part of it however what exactly were you supposed to analyse? Example?