Legal Studies Exam: Discussion and Suggested Answers

[katie,rinos]

Multiple Choice: I think I got around 17/20 which I’m pretty happy with!! However for question 17, I put down the right answer and then changed it because I thought it was wrong . For question 18, I think I put down self-defence but I’m not too sure.

Short Answer: I think the first one was ok, although I didn’t really study it too much. For the second one, I think I misinterpreted it and wrote about statute law instead of common law (I really liked my answer as well, hopefully I get a few marks.). I was really happy with the 8 marker though-I did child soldiers and talked about the international treaties/ R v. Lubanga case and NGO’s/UNESCO.

Crime: For crime I did a large paragraph on bail/remand, one on the anti-terrorism laws (especially as children as young as 10 can be held without a charge) and mandatory sentencing/one punch laws (as it doesn’t allow for judicial discretion such as mitigating/aggravating factors). Does this sound ok? I had a friend who wrote her entire essay on bail and remand and I definitely didn’t know enough information to fill an essay on just those two points.

Consumer: I did the second option for consumer and was fairly happy with my essay. I thought the two option questions were pretty nice. I talked about mandatory safety reporting (with the Thermomix case), Product certification/free range eggs, consumer credit and technology. I’m not too sure if I had enough non-legal measures though (ended up talking about Choice and the media a lot).

Family: Probably was the least confident for this one. I did the first option and talked about Same Sex relationships (in relation to the decriminalisation of homosexual sex and de facto rights), care/protection of children and surrogacy. I think I muddled up one of my laws and I made up a few articles but I think that I did ok.

Well done everybody!! My last exams now over! 

[Primallis]

@Elyse on the Common Law Question,

The Australian Human Rights Commission in its publication for a Human Rights Act highlights that 'However, governments are able to pass new legislation to override the common law. This means that the human rights reflected in the common law lack adequate protection.'

Source: http://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/content/letstalkaboutrights/HR_ACT.doc

Wouldn't statute law best protect Human Rights as not only can Judge Law be overturned by higher courts, but also the parliament can override this legislation? In addition, statute law must pass through both houses of Parliament, including the actual 'house of review' the Senate. Once enacted into law, it is protected unless a government repeals such law which means passing through both houses again. Not only that, Common Law cannot override statute law and therefore, protects human rights the best.

The only way it could be C is if it is saying Common Law protects the most amount of Human Rights but it was simply stating which way best protects Human Rights. In terms of protections from a legal stand point, the processes and cheques and balances seem to favour statute law more so than common law. Hence, the answer (I believe) should be B.

[Anfar3]

Perfect^ I think my teacher said statute law in class a few wks back too

Also, for the options, would I lose marks if i wrote about content too eg tenancy in shelter? The bulk of my response was on contemporary issues however the q said with ref to atleast 1 contemp issue. I took that as a broad q which must include discussion on contemp issues but also content. Am I okay?

Thanks

[dannimoussa]

Is it okay if i talked about bail for my whole essay? I am worried I got a bit repetitive in my essay

[rodero]

Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think that the argument about how common law can be overridden by statute law equates to its ability to protect human rights. In my opinion, you need to have a look at the separation of powers in order to truly protect human rights in a holistic sense. By simply having a human right enacted into legislation, that only considers the viewpoint of the legislature, and completely disregards the role of the judiciary and their need to interpret and apply the legislation. It is only through common law that BOTH the legislature and judiciary have been involved in the development of human rights law, so it is only then that it has been adequately protected. If we were to only consider the role of the legislature, then the legal system would ultimately result in tyranny.

In all honesty though, I was leaning towards 'enacted into legislation' at first. However, I recalled upon the 2015 HSC question where they asked a similar question, and the answer was common law.

[elysepopplewell]

Guys excel book page 116 "statute law... remains the main way that human rights are protected in australia". Any chance its not common law?

It is the main form of protection, but that doesn't mean the most protected. It's the quality over quantity thing! And I don't think the question in the exam necessarily lends itself to one more than the other distinctly.

I did the Mabo case for Question 22 on common law in the short answer, which subsequently led to the Native Title Act 1993. Is this an example of human rights?!?

I hadn't considered it before, but I guess that yeah, Native Title has enabled various human rights!

[Anfar3]

^ I think its fine however i thinnk u will be unable get 14-15/15 because you havent met all the requirements of the q. Since it said CJS you had to be more broad. I could be totally wrong however.

[elysepopplewell]

Is it okay if i talked about bail for my whole essay? I am worried I got a bit repetitive in my essay

Not at all! This is absolutely fine

@Elyse on the Common Law Question,

The Australian Human Rights Commission in its publication for a Human Rights Act highlights that 'However, governments are able to pass new legislation to override the common law. This means that the human rights reflected in the common law lack adequate protection.'

Source: http://www.humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/content/letstalkaboutrights/HR_ACT.doc

Wouldn't statute law best protect Human Rights as not only can Judge Law be overturned by higher courts, but also the parliament can override this legislation? In addition, statute law must pass through both houses of Parliament, including the actual 'house of review' the Senate. Once enacted into law, it is protected unless a government repeals such law which means passing through both houses again. Not only that, Common Law cannot override statute law and therefore, protects human rights the best.

The only way it could be C is if it is saying Common Law protects the most amount of Human Rights but it was simply stating which way best protects Human Rights. In terms of protections from a legal stand point, the processes and cheques and balances seem to favour statute law more so than common law. Hence, the answer (I believe) should be B.

I know what you're saying, and I'm not disagreeing with any of the points because it's all super valid. But rodero has summed it up pretty well, it's not just the ability to be overturned by an act of Parliament, it's also the fact that statue law is made and defeated by the legislature arm of the government. Whereas common law reflects the separation of powers better. As rodero has put it:

Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think that the argument about how common law can be overridden by statute law equates to its ability to protect human rights. In my opinion, you need to have a look at the separation of powers in order to truly protect human rights in a holistic sense. By simply having a human right enacted into legislation, that only considers the viewpoint of the legislature, and completely disregards the role of the judiciary and their need to interpret and apply the legislation. It is only through common law that BOTH the legislature and judiciary have been involved in the development of human rights law, so it is only then that it has been adequately protected. If we were to only consider the role of the legislature, then the legal system would ultimately result in tyranny.

In all honesty though, I was leaning towards 'enacted into legislation' at first. However, I recalled upon the 2015 HSC question where they asked a similar question, and the answer was common law.

[elysepopplewell]

^ I think its fine however i thinnk u will be unable get 14-15/15 because you havent met all the requirements of the q. Since it said CJS you had to be more broad. I could be totally wrong however.

I don't have complete authority on this because the marking criteria for this specific question hasn't been released, but although I personally would have talked about more sections of the criminal justice system, I imagine it's possible to get full marks by talking about various aspects of bail, if you provide enough angles about bail of course rather than just nailing home the same things over and over

[Anfar3]

Ok true ^ my bad sorry ahha.

Anyways guys, 2015 independent trial had the exact same question "which of the following provides the best protect of HR in aus today?
 And the answer was statute law.

[elysepopplewell]

Ok true ^ my bad sorry ahha.

Anyways guys, 2015 independent trial had the exact same question "which of the following provides the best protect of HR in aus today?
 And the answer was statute law.

It could be! This type of question has been used before so I'm keen to see the answer eventually

[dannimoussa]

I had 4 paragraphs with evaluation on different aspects of bail
First paragraph was about the inconsistencies in the granting of bail. Specifically looking at considerations in granting bail and how they aren't applied consistently
Second was on the ineffective nature of the Bail Act 2013
Third was on the implications of bail on young offenders
Fourth was about the Bail Act 2006 which disallows people to apply for bail more than once which means that peoples rights are being extinguished.
I also recurringly linked to tensions that exist between the community (who want people on remand) and individual rights (the presumption of innocent until proven guilty)
Can this attain a 15?

[Anfar3]

Perfect^ I think my teacher said statute law in class a few wks back too

Also, for the options, would I lose marks if i wrote about content too eg tenancy in shelter? The bulk of my response was on contemporary issues however the q said with ref to atleast 1 contemp issue. I took that as a broad q which must include discussion on contemp issues but also content. Am I okay?

Thanks

Hey elysse can u tell me what u think^?

[chloe_grounds]

For crime, I accidentally wrote the Bail 2011 and Bail 2013 Act instead of the Bail 2013 and Bail 2014 Act, and I only talked about the reforms of bail in one paragraph!! However I wrote three other paragraphs and used 4 booklets in total. Do you think this mistake could be mitigated by the fact I got other legislation correct?

Similarly for both the options, I wrote 5 booklets in total - do you think that guarantees a mark around 23/25? I used three contemporary issues for each question!

Freaking out!!!

Also what raw mark is needed to get aligned mark of 95?

[jamonwindeyer]

For crime, I accidentally wrote the Bail 2011 and Bail 2013 Act instead of the Bail 2013 and Bail 2014 Act, and I only talked about the reforms of bail in one paragraph!! However I wrote three other paragraphs and used 4 booklets in total. Do you think this mistake could be mitigated by the fact I got other legislation correct?

Similarly for both the options, I wrote 5 booklets in total - do you think that guarantees a mark around 23/25? I used three contemporary issues for each question!

Freaking out!!!

Also what raw mark is needed to get aligned mark of 95?

You won't be punished for mixing up a year in your legislation, if the essay was otherwise perfect it would still get 15/15 - Meaning, it might contribute to a lost mark, but it won't do it by itself

You can never guarantee any mark on length, but if what you wrote was good then that sounds like a great level of depth!

Aligned mark of 95 would probably need to be low 90's, based on previous years