Legal Studies Exam Discussion

[AmericanBeauty]

ANDDDDD ....

what does everyone think the A+ cut off will be? If I got 80% of that stuff right that I just listed, I think I could do pretty well. Otherwise, I'm screwed!!!

[chasej]

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.

1) Yep Judicial determination (it's not an ADR though, it's just a method of dispute resolution) - that was a question that tried to trick students who didn't pay attention I reckon.

2) Yeh that's right but it would have been better to use one factor and explain it in detail instead of talking about a range of factors. If you used many factors and didn't fully link back to influencing jury composition you may lose a mark tbh. But all of the factors you mentioned are correct.

3) Your points are all valid. If you explained them fully you would get the marks.

4) You wouldn't lose marks for things you got wrong, but good structer and logical progression of points can increase your mark. So basically, you won't be penalised, but you may have missed out an opportunity to move up a mark or two.

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.

 

That's correct but explaining about a double majority isn't relevant so won't earn you marks. The question seemed to be looking for more or a strength weakness thing of the role of the high court. Great idea to use an example though. But you could probably get 3/5 marks at least for what you said you wrote about.

ANDDDDD ....

what does everyone think the A+ cut off will be? If I got 80% of that stuff right that I just listed, I think I could do pretty well. Otherwise, I'm screwed!!!

I'm thinking a little lower than last year because this exam had a few trick questions but the 10 marker was quite easy so it wouldn't be significantly lower. Maybe 84-85% ish.

[Alter]

One: Was it judicial determination that was the ADR that is used in the supreme court trial division. I was like WTFFFF.

Definitely. You got it right!

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.

You didn't need to say it won't be a true cross section as you're delving into the territory of a jury evaluation. It would've been correct to say the questionnaire is one factor that will influence the composition of the jury (and then identify the concepts that you did--eligible, ineligible, excused, and disqualified). Empanelment and challenges is distinct from the questionnaire, however. You can only get awarded for a single factor, not both.

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.

Proper structuring is crucial for the 10 marker. They can penalise you if your ideas in the discussion are confusing or illogical. You shouldn't have delved so much into the referendum process; it is not relevant to a discussion on parliament's ability to make law.

Re: The 5 marker on High Court's ability to change the Constitution
I think you were meant to refer to the fact that it's the sole interpreter of the C/W Constitution (the power given to it by sections 75 and 76) and could therefore change the meaning of the words of the Constitution. Maybe chuck in an example here.

You were then meant to go on and say how it /can't/ change the C/W Constitution -- i.e. it cannot change the written words (this is only through a referendum), and it must wait for an appropriate case to arise before it can even interpret the Constitution. It can't go and change the meaning of terms in it out of its own volition. I also made another point about this, but it escapes me right now.

Re: A+ cutoff
Honestly, it's pretty hard to guess. I think there were a couple of tricky higher-order thinking questions (namely the 2nd last question and the ones that required extra thinking to do with the High Court and the referendum one), but it'll be roughly the same as the one last year or a tiny bit lower.

Try not to worry too much about it, as there's nothing you can do to change what you've put down--be happy with the effort you put in and remember there are things you answered which some people would've been clueless on or not even been able to get up to.

edit: oops. ninja'd by chasej

[AmericanBeauty]

4) You wouldn't lose marks for things you got wrong, but good structer and logical progression of points can increase your mark. So basically, you won't be penalised, but you may have missed out an opportunity to move up a mark or two.

Great news. I wrote literally first, second, third, fourth, fifth, then wrote about the second part of the question then below I wrote about the recent change (which I made up, I wrote about use of media and mining companies influencing change on mining tax being abrogated i dont really know if this is right.) THen below it I wrote like sixth and seventh, then just wrote those short points for memory. I think I wrote enough to get ten marks I just hope I'm not killed through structure. 

That's correct but explaining about a double majority isn't relevant so won't earn you marks. The question seemed to be looking for more or a strength weakness thing of the role of the high court. Great idea to use an example though. But you could probably get 3/5 marks at least for what you said you wrote about.

Little bummed about this. I'd love to read the question again. I'm pretty sure it was about the courts ability to change law, didn't realise it was a strength and weakness. I thought it was an analyse kind of question where you had to bring up literal facts. But I did fill up all the lines so I'm happy. I think I might be able to swig a 4/5 because I filled up the lines and wrote valid points and a fair bit about them, sort of two or three points with an example. I certainly didn't see the role of HC in the question so I'm bummed, will lose marks with that.

I'm thinking a little lower than last year because this exam had a few trick questions but the 10 marker was quite easy so it wouldn't be significantly lower. Maybe 84-85% ish.

I didn't think the ten marker was that easy. I didn't even realise that we had to know how parliament could CHANGE law??? Maybe making law is easy but not changing law. That is abstract and across units. 

[AmericanBeauty]

I think the A+ cut off will be way lower than last year. That was infinitely harder than last year, yet still sort of easy. I think my answers were all fine and my points in everything was valid, but I think I was just lacking a bit of clarity due to the complexity of some of the questions!!!!!

[thaoot]

I was wondering what would be the cutoff mark in the exam that guarantees you a 40+ study score? That is with an A+ average across both units 3&4

[meganrobyn]

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

...what section of the Constitution?

[TrivStar]

I was wondering what would be the cutoff mark in the exam that guarantees you a 40+ study score? That is with an A+ average across both units 3&4

Last year an A+ in the exam was 60/70, but 9% of people got an A+ so you probably needed at least 61 or 62 to get in that top 8% for the 40+. But people have been saying the cut off will probably be lower this year...You should check out (just google) "study score calculator" it's pretty accurate give or take a few points.

[thaoot]

Last year an A+ in the exam was 60/70, but 9% of people got an A+ so you probably needed at least 61 or 62 to get in that top 8% for the 40+. But people have been saying the cut off will probably be lower this year...You should check out (just google) "study score calculator" it's pretty accurate give or take a few points.

Thank you! I'll have a look at it! How did you find this year's exam?

[TrivStar]

Thank you! I'll have a look at it! How did you find this year's exam?

I thought it was pretty easy, to be honest! There were a few questions that I thought might be trick questions (like the referendum one where they referred to it as passing a law? Was that meant to be one of the reasons it was unsuccessful?) but it was all the stuff I was hoping for :-) Not too much precedent stuff which was good. What did you think?

[chasej]

...what section of the Constitution?

Freedom of movement between the states. Mother wanted to move with daughter interstate, injunction is introduced by family court prohibiting the interstate move after the father rejects claiming the move is not in child's interest. Mother goes to high court claiming restrictive injunction is illegal due to restriction on freedom of movement between states. high court expands on previous precedent finding some restrictions are allowable to find as it is in the child's best interests to remain in her home state, the restrictive injunction is constitutional and does not infringe the right to freedom of movement between states.

I like more obscure cases because the commonly rehashed textbook examples must be boring for the examiner.

[thaoot]

I thought it was pretty easy, to be honest! There were a few questions that I thought might be trick questions (like the referendum one where they referred to it as passing a law? Was that meant to be one of the reasons it was unsuccessful?) but it was all the stuff I was hoping for :-) Not too much precedent stuff which was good. What did you think?

Yeah there were definitely a few trick questions. For the referendum one I argued that it was unsuccessful as it didn't satisfy the double majority provision, and then expanded to explain why. The 8 marker seemed hard at first, but after reading it over a few times I was able to think of some things I could argue. The same with the 5 marker with the High Court and its ability to change the Constitution. I'm just worried about the 10 marker though. I don't know if the way I went about answering it was the right way...

[AmericanBeauty]

Yeah there were definitely a few trick questions. For the referendum one I argued that it was unsuccessful as it didn't satisfy the double majority provision

omfg the second bit of this question, please for the love of god tell me that the jury does not make precedent? I wrote that the judge makes precedent due to the obiter dictum or comments made along the way which contains the ratio decidendi, which forms the precedent. I Swear to god if I got that wrong I'm going to punch myself.

[hzjoonie]

For the 10 mark question I mentioned how parliament could abrogate laws made by the court since the question asked about their ability to 'change the law' and it didn't exactly specify what type of law they could change. I haven't heard anyone talk about mention anything to do with common law. Would I lose marks for this?:\

[AmericanBeauty]

For the 10 mark question I mentioned how parliament could abrogate laws made by the court since the question asked about their ability to 'change the law' and it didn't exactly specify what type of law they could change. I haven't heard anyone talk about mention anything to do with common law. Would I lose marks for this?:\

I wrote this earlier people said it was fine. I dont think you abrogate common law however, they just override it.