Exam post mortem 2016

[HopefulLawStudent]

I don't think there are going to be Legal Studies Sample Responses. It's not like the maths or sciences where there is one correct answer per se.

[Elleeen]

Would rather not see sample responses, can only make me feel worse about the exam than I currently do.
Most questions were fine, but I'm one of the people who read the role of Commonwealth Parliament question as "explain" rather than "evaluate", although explaining it did require me to talk about it in a positive/strength form, so maybe I can get 1 mark, if not a complete 0.

Also I completely freestyled the questions about comparing the role of the jury in criminal and civil cases, as well as the purpose of civil pre-trial and criminal pre-trial.

Assuming I got everything else perfectly answered (lol) then my mark isn't looking too bad.
I don't think legal is at all a horrible subject, like someone on the previous page stated. Despite not enjoying my time with it this year, and walking in and out of the exam wanting to neck, it is knowledge that I've definitely been able to apply in many situations, and which personally I am grateful for learning about.
I had a bit of a chuckle to myself when I was comparing Australia and the USA's protection of rights in the exam knowing that the US presidential elections were currently happening. Was even tempted to comment on it, but I figured since the majority of my responses were a joke, I couldn't afford to overdo it.

[Glasses]

I thought about doing some sample answers, but it's too difficult because there are so many possible answers. Alternatively, I'll start a thread later when I'm on my laptop where people can post their answers to some of the exam questions (especially those answers they're worried about) and I'll try to give some feedback and a possible mark for said answer.

[Olivia Shamoon]

for the 10 mark i discussed how the strengths of the adversary system + precedent (party control and avoiding precedent) can aid a judge in delivering an effective resolution, but the weaknesses of adversary + precedent (judge unable to exercise expertise, and being unable to avoid precedent) impedes the judges ability to make effective resolutions to the parties  wby?

also for that question regarding section 109, what did everyone mention for the 'how can a victorian law be in conflict with a federal law' bit? is it acceptable to respond that the OCPC may have been under pressure when drafting victorian legislation and not realise it was in conflict with a federal law?

Yeah that's what I spoke about too. I also spoke about party control, but was that what we were supposed to speak about? I was slightly unsure about that one. Also I spoke about how party control allows the adversary system to work effectively by allowing parties to be in charge of their own cases.

For the section 109 question, I spoke about how Victoria may enact a law that contradicts Commonwealth law and I also mentioned the Mcbain case (2000) in that question too.

[Elleeen]

Yeah that's what I spoke about too. I also spoke about party control, but was that what we were supposed to speak about? I was slightly unsure about that one. Also I spoke about how party control allows the adversary system to work effectively by allowing parties to be in charge of their own cases.

For the section 109 question, I spoke about how Victoria may enact a law that contradicts Commonwealth law and I also mentioned the Mcbain case (2000) in that question too.

I didn't reference party control for that question, but I did talk about other features of the adversary system (e.g. role of judge, rules of evidence and procedure), and how they contribute to effective dispute resolution (also referenced elements of an effective legal system here). Did strengths/weaknesses for those, then did the same for precedent.

As for the s.109 question, I wrote about concurrent powers... As in, the laws conflicted possibly because it was a concurrent power, and therefore s.109 could be used to resolve the inconsistency.