Legal Studies Exam: Discussion and Suggested Answers

[elysepopplewell]

HELLO LEGAL EAGLES!

GOOOOODBYEEEEE to your cases, legislation, media, treaties, wrinkles, and huge portions of stress!

Was this anyone's LAST exam?

I'm going to type up the answers and how I'd go about things and edit it into this post.

But let's start a discussion first. I think the crime essay was far trickier than I anticipated, but I think the options were smoooooth. I also think the short answers weren't too left of field at all, I'd be pretty happy with them. I'm going to look at multiple choice now, so watch this space!

But, how did you go?

I just want to say: I'm a little rusty but want to be completely accurate in my responses - but this isn't to say that because you wrote something different to me then you won't receive full marks. Everyone's unique angles on essay questions and short answer questions makes for a diverse range of appropriate responses. I'd love to hear about your case studies, your contemporary issues, etc. And if you think I've put up an answer that's not correct, I want to hear it also! So chime in
Click on this spoiler for the multiple choice:

Spoiler

Question One: This one is about the standard of proof. The answer is C, beyond reasonable doubt.
Question Two: Using process of elimination, the function of the judge is not at all to question the witness, or to investigate the crime. This leaves me with: to present the case to the jury, or to decide what evidence can be admitted. This leaves us with the last two options: is the PRIMARY function of the judge to present the case to the jury? Or is the primary function to decide what evidence can be admitted? If you asked me what the primary function is of a judge outside of this question - I'd tell you it is to preside of the court proceedings and to hand down a sentence in cases involving a jury. I want to say the judge "presents the case" to the jury, but I think it's more accurate to say the judge presents the operations of the court and the instructions to the jury. The prosecutor will present the case. Which makes me think the answer is C - to decide what evidence can be admitted. They are only deciding against the Evidence Act, after all, so there's not a lot of discretion. But I'd say C (although in an exam situation, I would've thought B looked the most right immediately). So the answer is definitely C - to decide what evidence can be admitted. The judge is there to ensure fairness.
Question Three: The appeal question. The answer is B: Appeal against severity.
Question Four: The question about fundamental principles of human rights: the answer is B. Universal and Inalienable.
Question Five: The role of the DPP is to review the charges against an accused person: D.
Question Six: Who would usually issue an arrest warrant? A judicial officer.
Question Seven: (This question is random): Alberia is a colony of Belinia. Alberia wants to form an independent nation. This is a collective right, the answer is A. The right to self determination.
Question Eight: Human rights are best protected in Australia when they are: Incorporated into the common law. Personally, I think if they gave this as a short answer question I could play devil's advocate to B or C - incorporated into legislation or into common law. My thought process is: the question is asking about "protection" and I don't think it's very well protected in legislation because it can be overturned at any given time. Common law, not so much. Without going into more complexities, but I'll just dabble a little for anyone interested, I think the flip side of the coin is saying that there is a rebuttable presumption for common law rights in regards to human rights. But, I maintain the answer is C: Incorporated into common law. Here's an extra resource.
Question Nine: It is illegal for an under 18 year old to buy or possess spray paint without a legal reason to do so (eg, it's part of your training as a painting apprentice). The answer is D. On the spot, the police only need to establish that you were in possession, not why. So this is a strict liability offence, but there is a provision to allow for someone under the age of 18 to prove (the burden being on them) that they had it for a good, honest, reason.
 So it is a strict liability offence (see legislation here)
Question Ten: Derek is an accessory after the fact: A.
Question Eleven: Situational Crime Prevention <3 <3 <3 If you've come to my lectures you know this is my greatest joy in life <3 <3 <3 And if you haven't come to my lectures you're reading this thinking I'm so strange.
Question Twelve: The committal hearing establishes the prima facie.
Question Thirteen: It's a post-sentencing consideration. It's only considered after the judge has handed the length of the sentence and where it is to be served, and then if the former police officer turned criminal feels unsafe, it will be considered after the sentencing.
Question Fourteen: If someone is charged with an offence of using obscene language, they're going to be heard in the local court. It's not a huge deal in comparison to other crimes, but a crime nonetheless.
Question Fifteen: The answer to the ICJ question is B: To hear disputes between nation states and issue advice.
Question Sixteen: A, state sovereignty.
Question Seventeen: The answer is D: To guide prosecutors and inform the public about actions taken in its name. As per here.
Question Eighteen: The partial defence question...I phoned a friend (Jamon) for this one, because technically all of these could come about as a full defence, but the least likely to work as a full defence, and therefore be a partial defence if successful at all, is accident. This moves things into negligence for me, which mitigates but not clears an offence. So this makes me think the answer is A, accident. But as Jamon has pointed out, insanity, or not being of sound mind (option B), is a partial defence too and has cited this document. I'm inclined to agree, although it was not my first response, because "accident" isn't the actual name of the defence. We aren't sure, and would love to know what you put down?
Edit: After discussions on the thread here, with my dad, and with Jamon, I essentially want to remove all authority I have over this question's answer because I've talked in and out of every single option. I don't think "accident" is the appropriate name for a defence unless they were using it synonymously with mistake, which is. But if self defence can be interpreted as a type of provocation, which it typically isn't but this is an unusual question, then I guess, maybe. And then insanity too. So, yeah, unsure, but I'd like to hear how you all went about it.
Question Nineteen: Process of elimination here. The key to the question is "definitely" increase the possibility of bail. All of these (except D, I think), can contribute to the possibility of bail, but I think A is most correct because keeping a minor in jail if it can be avoided isn't something we see a lot, because the courts try to avoid juveniles contacting law enforcement services where possible to prevent negative attitudes.
Question Twenty: The answer is the separation of powers - the judges are able to make comment on legislation that affects proceedings in court thanks to the separation of powers.

Click on this spoiler for short answer suggestions:

Spoiler

Outline how trade unionism can protect labour rights: Trade unions work as a voice for employers to speak out to their employee about unfair conditions, or conditions that could be improved. Trade unions help to mobilise and organise small or large scale complaints, thus promoting an effectiveness with strikes or petitions that can assist with minimum wages, working conditions, equal pay, long service leave, public holiday rates, maternity leave, paternity leave, unfair dismissal, bullying, worker's compensation, workplace health and safety laws... and so on. Trade unionism works to organise and advise demonstrations, conferences, committees, negotiations of pay and conditions, and so forth. You could discuss any of the things I listed between the commas

Describe how the common law in Australia promotes and enforces human rights. Use an appropriate example to support your answer.
Funny this came up a little in the multiple choice!! In times like this I wish we had a Bill of Rights. So, Common law is the body of law that is composed by the judgements of the courts. Common law is evolving - it was passed to Australia from the UK and it evolves independently from the government. This is important to note, because legislation may protect human rights, but a simple act of parliament can dismiss this. In saying this, acts of Parliament can dismiss common law rights, but I'd wager that in reality it's not going to have such a devastating effect because the separation of powers allows the judiciary to have a say in the interpretation of this all. The presumption of innocence and the right to a fair trial are protected in common law. If you're wondering what kind of human rights are protected in Common Law, here's a list according to the Government's Human Rights Page.
Cases cited by Chief Justice Spigelman indicate that there are rebuttable presumptions that Parliament did not intend:

to retrospectively change rights and obligations;
to infringe personal liberty;
to interfere with freedom of movement;
to interfere with freedom of speech;
to alter criminal law practices based on the principle of a fair trial;
to restrict access to the courts;
to permit an appeal from an acquittal;
to interfere with the course of justice;
to abrogate legal professional privilege;
to exclude the right to claim self-incrimination;
to extend the scope of a penal statute;
to deny procedural fairness to persons affected by the exercise of public power;
to give executive immunities a wide application;
to interfere with vested property rights;
to authorise the commission of a tort;
to alienate property without compensation;
to disregard common law protection of personal reputation; and
to interfere with equality of religion.
He also noted that while a presumption against racial discrimination has yet to be identified, racial discrimination has been found to breach common law rights. (Constantine v Imperial Hotels Ltd [1944] 1 KB 693 at 708).

The key to answering this question is attacking the "promotes" and "enforce" - because Common law is part of the judicial system, the judiciary system enforces these rights essentially through interpretation. Afterall, these rights develop on a case-by-case basis.

So essentially - a whoooole heap of things for you to talk about here, and a million different angles.

Evaluate the effectiveness of legal and non-legal issues:

This is the bigger one, the 8 marks. This could go any which way depending on what your contemporary issue was. I think this is a pretty good question in terms of it being broad to suit your contemporary human rights issue, no huge surprises here really, but it is a sizeable amount of marks!


Overall: I don't think this short answer question section was too surprising or too challenging. Three questions is pretty easy to answer - but I think the one to capture most people out is the first question, I only say this because I know people tend to skim their notes for the development of human rights! But definitely not unfair questions right here at all

And click this one for the crime essay:

Spoiler

At first glance I was somewhat shook at this essay. The key to accessibility in this essay is "Assess this statement with reference to the criminal justice system." So Jamon and I chatted about this, and we think it's fair for you to focus on bail and remand for a significant portion of the essay, but make a comparison and contrast to the tensions between community interests and individuals rights and freedoms as seen in other parts of the syllabus. It's not as scary when you dig a little deeper, but it is a pretty intimidating question to open up onto upon first look.

Overall, I think the paper is quite fair. I think there have been legal papers more challenging than this one in the past, but it also wasn't a complete walk in the park by any means.

Congratulations!

[Wales]

Crime was weird and gave me flashbacks to Mod B Yeats. Short answer would of been easier if I studied a tad more and I thought mc was a bit harder then I thought too. Options were smooth though, managed about 13 pages per option but only 6 for crime hoping everyone else found crime as bad as I did haha jokes.

How did everyone else find it?

[watsofin]

Does anyone know what they answers were to the multiple crime choice?

[jamonwindeyer]

Does anyone know what they answers were to the multiple crime choice?

Elyse will have them posted soon!

[grace.estelle]

I definitely thought the crime essay was quite specific. I did one paragraph on bail, one on police powers and one on preventative detention for those suspected of terrorist activity. Would I lose marks for not talking about bail/remand throughout my essay? I did consistently refer to the “tension between community interests and individual rights and freedom.”

[caitlinlddouglas]

I definitely thought the crime essay was quite specific. I did one paragraph on bail, one on police powers and one on preventative detention for those suspected of terrorist activity. Would I lose marks for not talking about bail/remand throughout my essay? I did consistently refer to the “tension between community interests and individual rights and freedom.”

I think you would have been ok maybe, I spoke about bail and then about trrrosim laws (with case of Mohammed haneef) and then in the last paragraph I spoke about sentencing because it did address this statement with regard to the criminal justice system so I took it to mean the tension was prevalent throughout the CJS. But then again maybe i should have just limited to bail!:/

[georgiia]

I definitely thought the crime essay was quite specific. I did one paragraph on bail, one on police powers and one on preventative detention for those suspected of terrorist activity. Would I lose marks for not talking about bail/remand throughout my essay? I did consistently refer to the “tension between community interests and individual rights and freedom.”

I did the exact same but instead of preventative detention I did rights of suspects e.g right to remain silent. I’m not sure if the question was requiring an entire essay on bail or not ...

[jamonwindeyer]

I definitely thought the crime essay was quite specific. I did one paragraph on bail, one on police powers and one on preventative detention for those suspected of terrorist activity. Would I lose marks for not talking about bail/remand throughout my essay? I did consistently refer to the “tension between community interests and individual rights and freedom.”

I think you would have been ok maybe, I spoke about bail and then about trrrosim laws (with case of Mohammed haneef) and then in the last paragraph I spoke about sentencing because it did address this statement with regard to the criminal justice system so I took it to mean the tension was prevalent throughout the CJS. But then again maybe i should have just limited to bail!:/

Elyse will discuss further, but on our initial chat we think that you could tie in other elements and still be answering the question, since it asked for the question to be answered with respect to the criminal justice system - But bail would have needed to be in there somewhere

[paigek3]

Officially completed the HSC forever!!!!!!!!

I found the exam so extremely kind!!! Honestly, the questions fit quite perfectly with what I had studied. Although, for world order part b I struggled to actually cut down to what I was going to write!! I wrote 7-7.5 pages for each response, which I know should’ve probably been more for the options but oh weeeellll

HR: 3 marker I wrote about how it is recognised in article 7 and 8 of ICESCR (hope I’m right lol) and said trade unionism protects labour rights by allowing wage earners to lobby for their human rights to be protected. 4 marker the case I used was Giller v Prococepts on the right to privacy. 8 marker my contemporary was religious discrimination and I did articles from the international bill of rights, Australian constitution and statue law in Australia. Non legal I did the media, 2 international organisations and 1 Australian organisation

Crime: did two very big, in-depth paragraphs to reach the seven pages, one on bail and the other on how the tension between the two parties is also reflected in police powers, in particular the new shoot to kill powers. I’m worried though because whilst I used plenty of Legislation and Media, and even an international document, I didn’t use a case because I couldn’t think of one and didn’t want to risk the legitimacy of my essay :/

Family: did question a and did same sex, paragraph 1 on decriminalisation of homosexual sex, 2 on de factos and 3 on the need for reform in the area of marriage

World order: did question b and did the icj and unsc as legal responses, the international committee on the Red Cross and red crescent for non legal, then did a paragraph on how state sovereignty limits the ability of any measures to be completely effective

I feel confident in what I did but just hoping the markers like what I wrote and that I didn’t bomb the multiple choice

And my usual question after every exam for Elyse and Jamon - what do you think the raw band 6 cut off will be for this year? and maybe even what do you think will be the raw mark cut off for a state rank

Thank you! Keen to update this once I see mc answers

[jamonwindeyer]

Officially completed the HSC forever!!!!!!!!

And my usual question after every exam for Elyse and Jamon - what do you think the raw band 6 cut off will be for this year? and maybe even what do you think will be the raw mark cut off for a state rank

Thank you! Keen to update this once I see mc answers

Well done on finishing!!

From my initial thoughts, cut-off will be standard (in the low 80's), as for state rank I imagine you'd be looking at a raw mark over 95% at least, but I can't be sure!

[elysepopplewell]

Congratulations to those who are finishedddddd!!!

I've put the multiple choice answers in the original post. What did you think of question 18, everyone? The one about the partial defence?

I'm going to start commenting on short answers now. So check back to the original post soon!

[grace.estelle]

Congratulations to those who are finishedddddd!!!

I've put the multiple choice answers in the original post. What did you think of question 18, everyone? The one about the partial defence?

I'm going to start commenting on short answers now. So check back to the original post soon!

Hey Elyse, that was the one multiple choice I struggled with!

[paigek3]

Congratulations to those who are finishedddddd!!!

I've put the multiple choice answers in the original post. What did you think of question 18, everyone? The one about the partial defence?

I'm going to start commenting on short answers now. So check back to the original post soon!

I put self defence whatever letter that waaaas

[elysepopplewell]

Hey Elyse, that was the one multiple choice I struggled with!

What answer did you put down Grace?

[jamonwindeyer]

I put self defence whatever letter that waaaas

My brother and I have just had a 10 minute discussion, because he put down self defence as well. I wouldn't be surprised if it was C (self defence), because insanity can be a complete defence and necessity definitely is, and if accident meant mistake then that is also a complete defence. Self defence can be partial if the response was deemed excessive.

Honestly very unsure