Legal Studies Exam Discussion

[TrivStar]

Also what case did everyone use for the rights question?

[clidedescope]

Also what case did everyone use for the rights question?

The constitutional protection of rights one? Roach v Electoral Commissioner 2007

[chasej]

Also what case did everyone use for the rights question?

AMS v. AIF, it's a family law case involving constitutional interpretation.

[sarah_a]

Think i made a stupid mistake, do challenges count as a factor that influences the composition of juries??

[connie990]

Think i made a stupid mistake, do challenges count as a factor that influences the composition of juries??

I think so

[chasej]

Think i made a stupid mistake, do challenges count as a factor that influences the composition of juries??

they sure do.

[sarah_a]

I think so

they sure do.

Thanks!!

[connie990]

That 8 mark question was the only one where I was like what

What else did you guys write for the 10 mark question apart from strengths/weaknesses of parliament and the example?

[clidedescope]

What else did you guys write for the 10 mark question apart from strengths/weaknesses of parliament and the example?

I'm concerned this isn't a valid point (and I'm kicking myself because I could have just said that Constitution restricts parliament in situations such as S116, because parliament doesn't have the ability to make/change law on that area), but I said that parliament can't overrule a High Court interpretation of the Constitution. It would have to hold a referendum to change it entirely, where the people are consulted first, so that restricts it's ability to from change the law.

Would that have been accepted? It wasn't my main point, I had others, but I'm just curious. I'm now very worried that the Constitution doesn't count as 'law'.

[M_BONG]

I'm concerned this isn't a valid point (and I'm kicking myself because I could have just said that Constitution restricts parliament in situations such as S116, because parliament doesn't have the ability to make/change law on that area), but I said that parliament can't overrule a High Court interpretation of the Constitution. It would have to hold a referendum to change it entirely, where the people are consulted first, so that restricts it's ability to from change the law.

Would that have been accepted? It wasn't my main point, I had others, but I'm just curious. I'm now very worried that the Constitution doesn't count as 'law'.

What you've said is absolutely correct - parliament can't change the law if it is deemed "ultra vires" or unconstitutional by the High Court. Indeed, they can't do anything about it unless they hold a referendum so it does affect whether they can change the law.  It's a good point to make because not many people would think of linking the Constitution with parliament (how silly!). The Constitution directly affects parliament and I recond, this question should include some references to the Constitution to make it perfect, to be honest.

Keep in mind also, 8-10 markers are marked globally. Assessors can't take off marks if you said something slightly incorrect if the rest of your response was really good.

[TrivStar]

I'm concerned this isn't a valid point (and I'm kicking myself because I could have just said that Constitution restricts parliament in situations such as S116, because parliament doesn't have the ability to make/change law on that area), but I said that parliament can't overrule a High Court interpretation of the Constitution. It would have to hold a referendum to change it entirely, where the people are consulted first, so that restricts it's ability to from change the law.

Would that have been accepted? It wasn't my main point, I had others, but I'm just curious. I'm now very worried that the Constitution doesn't count as 'law'.

I discussed the constitution and how state/commonwealth can't make/change laws that aren't in their division of power, as well as the referendum stuff for both of them :-)

[xmishle]

Does anyone know if the legal exam is scanned? Thanks!!

[clidedescope]

What you've said is absolutely correct - parliament can't change the law if it is deemed "ultra vires" or unconstitutional by the High Court. Indeed, they can't do anything about it unless they hold a referendum so it does affect whether they can change the law.  It's a good point to make because not many people would think of linking the Constitution with parliament (how silly!). The Constitution directly affects parliament and I recond, this question should include some references to the Constitution to make it perfect, to be honest.

Keep in mind also, 8-10 markers are marked globally. Assessors can't take off marks if you said something slightly incorrect if the rest of your response was really good.

Oh my gosh thank you so much, this has eased my mind. Now I'm wishing I added more about the Constitution, haha! Talking about the division of powers would have been a good one.
Nevermind though, what's done is done, I'll just wait until December 15th and until then, enjoy my exam free life

[AmericanBeauty]

Four questions -

One: Was it judicial determination that was the ADR that is used in the supreme court trial division. I was like WTFFFF.
Two: With that question asking about the composition of jury, I spoke about how it may not be a true cross section because the jury can have ineligible, disqualified and excused for good reason, and I said that the accused (should have wrote defendant) can use preemptory challenges and just cause challenges.
Three: For the second last queston, wtf? I think I made the same points ... I was talking about pre-trial procedures not being fast because there was so many documents and shit to go through, yet with VCAT they don't have this so they don't waste time on it and go straight to making decisions. Then I wrote however again and I was like pre-trial procedures make sure the decision is as accurate as possible through knowing all the facts of the case and facts about the claim, then I said however this saw a compromise at VCAT. compromising the most accurate decision for more cases being able to be heard by VCAT.
I pretty much said the same argument but with regards to speed (VCAT) and delays (pre-trial procedure) like literally.
Four: With the last question, would it matter if I got some things wrong and got some things right? I think I made about 5 four/five line points about referendums, abrogating laws, requiring royal assent, requiring bi-partisan support and shit, as well as a few really short ones with like one lines just adding them in at last minute at the bottom of my answer about things like they can be limited by their jurisdiction, and they can't change express rights without referendum and stuff. At the start I read the question wrong and I started speaking about parliament making laws 'in futuro' and while I kept it in, I think everything else was on track. Will I lose marks for terrible structuring and getting things wrong or are they just looking to give me marks? I'm not sure if they can subtract marks.

I think the exam was pretty hard while easy at the same time. Required alot of thinking. I hope I did OK.

[AmericanBeauty]

Oh yeah and that question asking whether High Court change law for like 5 marks ... I think I went off on another tangent.

I said that they can't make law and the only way they law can be changed is through a  referendum, then I wrote about the double majority. I said they are able to interpret statute which can change the MEANING of the law, but not the actual laws itself. Then I think I spoke about the brislan case altering the division of powers as they changed the meaning of 'and other like services,' changing the meaning of the law. I argued they can't change law but just the meaning.