Legal Studies Exam Discussion

[AmericanBeauty]

The obiter dictum does not form part of the ratio decidendi but rather are other comments made by the judge in the judgment which don't effect the reasons for the decision, but can often provide interesting commentary about social values and recommendations for updates in the law etc., basically as the definition states, they are comments made by the way which aren't directly relevant. Both the obiter and ratio are found in a judgement, but they are separate from each other and mean different things.

Hmm. I was told that the ratio decidendi arises from the comments said along the way in trial, thus making the ratio decidendi. I may have worded it dangerously in the exam, damn it. Someone said that to me so I put it down. Oh well.

[chasej]

Hmm. I was told that the ratio decidendi arises from the comments said along the way in trial, thus making the ratio decidendi. I may have worded it dangerously in the exam, damn it. Someone said that to me so I put it down. Oh well.

ah that sucks, what you said is incorrect unfortunately.

[Jawnle]

yeh that's exactly what I did. I explained what was happening in the scenario i.e. a referendum to change constitution's wording. explained the double majority provision. then explained why it didn't meet that provision.

I'm pretty sure it was 3 marks too.

Yeah I think I fell short on that 3 mark.
I explained the double majority requirement and why it didn't meet that provision. Didn't really talk about alteration bills or anything. Hope I put enough detail for the 3 marks!

[jessicafoster]

does the lenght of trial count for the composition of juries?
3month trial theres 15 jurors, 3 are balloted out?

[jessicafoster]

and also, for the high court interpretation, i fucking some how mentioned the 'implied right' and said that it may have changed the meaning of the constitution if it was not intended by the founding fathers to be protected.... someone tell me if thats ok....

[AmericanBeauty]

and also, for the high court interpretation, i fucking some how mentioned the 'implied right' and said that it may have changed the meaning of the constitution if it was not intended by the founding fathers to be protected.... someone tell me if thats ok....

I  mentioned implied right. I spoke about the prison case uhh roach vs commission 2007 or whatever it was. I said that it established a limited implied right. I'm hoping its right. I also spoke about structural protection.

[connie990]

I  mentioned implied right. I spoke about the prison case uhh roach vs commission 2007 or whatever it was. I said that it established a limited implied right. I'm hoping its right. I also spoke about structural protection.

I did an implied right as well I hope that's right 

It should be right though because it didn't say 'express right'... it just said protected 'a right'.. I think..

[AmericanBeauty]

That exam seemed so straight forward give or take the last two questions, but there was so much ambiguity through so many questions!!! I think the bell curve on the report will have less people in the middle with more at the top and more at the bottom.

[Alter]

I  mentioned implied right. I spoke about the prison case uhh roach vs commission 2007 or whatever it was. I said that it established a limited implied right. I'm hoping its right. I also spoke about structural protection.

I was under the belief that the (limited) right to vote was a form of structural protection, rather than an implied right. The only implied right that exists is that of freedom of political communication. I suppose you could argue for the way you stated it, though.

[TrivStar]

I was under the belief that the (limited) right to vote was a form of structural protection, rather than an implied right. The only implied right that exists is that of freedom of political communication. I suppose you could argue for the way you stated it, though.

My teacher told me it was really contentious whether or not it's a limited implied right or not, and advised us to stick away from it because apparently it can come down to the marker as to whether they think it's correct or not? I think it might've worked for that question though if the answer is worded well

[chasej]

My teacher told me it was really contentious whether or not it's a limited implied right or not, and advised us to stick away from it because apparently it can come down to the marker as to whether they think it's correct or not? I think it might've worked for that question though if the answer is worded well

if there is any doubt, the marker would probably give you the benefit of the doubt.

[engton1796]

if there is any doubt, the marker would probably give you the benefit of the doubt.

I used the Roach case in speaking about the High Court's protection of rights or something.

I linked it with structural protection of rights.  Established a limited implied right because we are indirectly protected by the principle of Representative Government and infringes on that principle.

[vceisajoke]

I used the Roach case in speaking about the High Court's protection of rights or something.

I linked it with structural protection of rights.  Established a limited implied right because we are indirectly protected by the principle of Representative Government and infringes on that principle.

I'm convinced beyond reasonable doubt that what you said is correct because we were told in revision notes that if the questions asks for 'rights protection', we talk about the Roach case, the Australian Capital Television Case and the like. The Brislan Case and Tasmanian Dam Case are for if the question asks about 'Commonwealth/State powers' (which there were none).

[AmericanBeauty]

My teacher told me it was really contentious whether or not it's a limited implied right or not, and advised us to stick away from it because apparently it can come down to the marker as to whether they think it's correct or not? I think it might've worked for that question though if the answer is worded well

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iJVSqHlJiY4

Hopefully this clarifies that it is a limited implied right.

[engton1796]

I'm convinced beyond reasonable doubt that what you said is correct because we were told in revision notes that if the questions asks for 'rights protection', we talk about the Roach case, the Australian Capital Television Case and the like. The Brislan Case and Tasmanian Dam Case are for if the question asks about 'Commonwealth/State powers' (which there were none).

Well, I think I recall using Brislan's case for the question asking about the effects of statutory interpretation, linking it with the whole "other like-services" drama.  Unless I completely missed the point of it... which was me during most questions.  Especially the 10-mark one.