Legal Studies Exam: Discussion and Suggested Answers

[Anfar3]

Jamon, considering that the crime q in this test wouldve thrown alot of people off, compared to last year would u say this year was a tad harder?
I think options were of similar difficulty in both years aswell as mcq. The human rights were a tad more difficult than last yr aswell i think.  So, compared to last yr do u think this yr will align better or worse?

[znzanenorris1999]

Hey Elyse and Jamon,

Thanks heaps for putting up your suggested answers!!!! I think the multiple choice questions this year were much more ambiguous than in previous years, and this was the only section I really struggled with.

I got mostly the same as you guys, except for question 10. I think I may be wrong but I dont remember the question stipulating whether Derek helped conceal the crime before or after the fact. Therefore, I chose D (Principal in the 2nd degree), with my reasoning being If Derek helped his friend conceal a crime e.g. murder, he would potentially have to be at the scene or have such a knowledge of the crime that would make him more than an accessory. What are your thoughts?

[WolfofGeorgeSt]

Can anyone give me the options for Question 17? I forgot what I chose

New around here but keen to hear what you guys think of my essays

For the crime question I did

- Presumption of  Bail and how it lead to Man Haron Monis and the Lindt cafe (he was out on bail and gave the individual freedom but conflicted community interests, resulting in a terrorist attack)

- Defence of Provocation which showed in R v Singh 2009 how community values were not met however personal freedoms were, talked about the amendment in 2014.

- Mandatory sentencing. R v Loveridge 2013 and the subsequent Law Reform that restricted judicial discretion and ultimately the right to a fair trail. Also talked about the media backlash over it and community values not being met.

Thoughts on how this essay will travel out of 15?

For Family I did option b)

- Child support scheme (Legal effective)

- Birth Techs (same^)

- Domestic Violence

- Defacto Relationships (same sex as well)

Non Legal

- The Media and community organisations that help with Domestic Violence victims

World Order I did (Legal)

- NATO and Kosovo

- Treaties to prevent Nuclear War

- UNSC (ineffective in Rwanada)

- ICJ (ineffective in Nacargua)

Non-Legal

- USA in Iraq illegally using force (ineffective)

[Anfar3]

I think for legal and non legal qs u have to balance them in some way so obviously more for legal but like a 60-40 is a max. Because the whole q is based on legal and non legal it doesnt say with reference to one or two non-legal responses. I also think you cant just scrtch the surface witht these responses and must have evidence for ngos etc rather than plainly speaking about the purpose. Because otherwise it doesnt fulfil the marking criteria i think.

For q 17, it said after the crime was committed, Derek helped concealing the crime therefore after the fact.

[inVINCEble]

Hey Guys! i thought this exams was pretty good except for a whole crime essay on bail and remand... but my Teacher said that for 18 it was ACCIDENT??? we were all confused too ;(

[jamonwindeyer]

Jamon, considering that the crime q in this test wouldve thrown alot of people off, compared to last year would u say this year was a tad harder?
I think options were of similar difficulty in both years aswell as mcq. The human rights were a tad more difficult than last yr aswell i think.  So, compared to last yr do u think this yr will align better or worse?

I think the Options this year were much easier than last year, they would have been accessible for more people since they were so broad, so I think the paper shouldn't align significantly differently to previous years. Nothing significant if there is a difference, if I had to guess

Can anyone give me the options for Question 17? I forgot what I chose

New around here but keen to hear what you guys think of my essays

Welcome! I think what you've covered sounds great, if you've analysed these things effectively then I think you'll perform well

I think for legal and non legal qs u have to balance them in some way so obviously more for legal but like a 60-40 is a max. Because the whole q is based on legal and non legal it doesnt say with reference to one or two non-legal responses. I also think you cant just scrtch the surface witht these responses and must have evidence for ngos etc rather than plainly speaking about the purpose. Because otherwise it doesnt fulfil the marking criteria i think.

I think that the way you treat non-legal isn't as scrutinised as the Legal responses is. For example, having an essay based around Legal responses and how these are supported by non-legal responses, would score highly even if the non-legal responses played a backseat role. I think it is very much a case-by-case thing

Hey Guys! i thought this exams was pretty good except for a whole crime essay on bail and remand... but my Teacher said that for 18 it was ACCIDENT??? we were all confused too ;(

I've seen good arguments put forward for every option except necessity, from teachers and students - I really think we'll have to wait and see!

[Anfar3]

Hey Jamon, for the options, would I lose marks if i wrote about content aswell for part a) 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

[abigail.paduch]

Hi guys that question on partial defences I really strongly would argue the answer was accident/mistake (I can't remember the exact wording)
Whenever you see the word partial defence you instantly need to put "to murder after it". Other crimes don't have partial defences, they just have acquittal and mitigating factors.
All the other defences are complete defences. An accident would attribute to recklessness or negligence, and thus be used as a partial defence lowering the sentence to manslaughter.
Self defence and necessity can be used as complete defences, I don't think you guys are disagreeing in that. Mental insanity is a complete defence; mental illness is a partial defence, therefore, because mental insanity is a complete defence, its also not the correct answer.

The thing I struggled with was determining is by accident NESA was trying to imply the full defence of an " honest and reasonable mistake of fact". However, although i did breifly consider this, I felt like that it was too far fetched and many people wouldn't know that depth of detail.
What would you guess say after taking a look at my reasoning? Is there something I have not considered I should have?

[mcartwri4]

Hey! could I get the exact wording for q8? it seems like the only one I got wrong 

from what I remember I thought it asked about categories of crime and so I put public order, I agree that it's a strict liability offense, but is that a specific category?

[Primallis]

Some clarification on Question 18 on the partial defence of accident:

"Unwilled and accidental acts

A person is not criminally responsible for an act or omission that occurs independently of the exercise of the person’s will or that occurs by accident. However, (s 23(1A) Criminal Code) provides that a person is not excused from criminal responsibility for death or grievous bodily harm that results to a victim because of a physical defect, weakness or abnormality, even though the offender does not intend or reasonably foresee the death or grievous bodily harm."

Source: QLD Law Handbook: https://queenslandlawhandbook.org.au/the-queensland-law-handbook/offenders-and-victims/introduction-to-criminal-law/defences-against-criminal-charges/

[steveb013]

The wording in both Q8 and Q18 is key.

Q8 - In my opinion is legislation. Yes in the past there was a question similar and the answer was common law, but the wording was not the same. Recently there has been enough changes to suggest legislation is certainly the best way to protect human rights. The question was 'human rights are best protected in Australia WHEN THEY ARE'.. Not, 'HOW are they best protected' which was a past question. There is a difference in my opinion. Also, are they really 'incorporated' into the common law?

I've read the argument that legislation can be changed, so it is not very protective, but I would counter that argument with the fact common law can be expanded or reduced by legislation passed by Parliament also.. Someone has already provided information from the humanrights.gov.au site which provides "human rights reflected in the common law lack adequate protection".. There have been similar questions in past trials and answers have all been statute so if NESA have the answer as C I would suggest there will be some complaints lodged.


Q18 - Again, the wording is key. The question asks 'which of the following CAN be used as a partial defence?' Now, whilst you are all correct in saying insanity, necessity and self defence are all in fact complete defences - so by process of elimination accident should be the answer, as mentioned this is not a defence. Implying that NESA may be referring to 'mistake' is a long bow to draw in my opinion anyways.

The answer is D - Self defence, which CAN be used as a partial defence.

[Claudiahilton]

Question 18 was hard! I put down accident because I knew all the others were complete but at the same time knew accident technically isn't a defence...

[Lumenoria]

Yeah my teacher was talking about Q18 to the class and she reckons they'll end up canning it?

[jamonwindeyer]

Hey Jamon, for the options, would I lose marks if i wrote about content aswell for part a) 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

Regurgitating content isn't going to earn you marks by itself, but it isn't going to take any away either. You'll get marks for your analysis and evaluation

Some clarification on Question 18 on the partial defence of accident:

"Unwilled and accidental acts

A person is not criminally responsible for an act or omission that occurs independently of the exercise of the person’s will or that occurs by accident. However, (s 23(1A) Criminal Code) provides that a person is not excused from criminal responsibility for death or grievous bodily harm that results to a victim because of a physical defect, weakness or abnormality, even though the offender does not intend or reasonably foresee the death or grievous bodily harm."

Source: QLD Law Handbook: https://queenslandlawhandbook.org.au/the-queensland-law-handbook/offenders-and-victims/introduction-to-criminal-law/defences-against-criminal-charges/

We can't use QLD Legal documentation, they would be going off NSW legislation and the laws differ slightly if memory serves me correctly!!
I'll let Elyse jump on when she can and respond to the specific queries on wording, since she has the exam (NESA will likely publish it on Monday).

For everyone discussing Q18, I honestly think we'll just have to wait and see, because I think pretty much any answer requires a bit of stretched thinking. Accident isn't the formal defence name, there are issues with saying insanity of course. I've changed my mind since yesterday and am leaning most towards self defence, but it doesn't fit with how the course is structured. Self defence is primarily taught as a complete defence and has been framed that way in past papers, excessive self defence (the partial defence equivalent) I've never even seen mentioned in HSC Legal Studies. So while I'm expecting it to come out that the answer is self defence, it being one of the other two wouldn't totally shock me either.

Yeah my teacher was talking about Q18 to the class and she reckons they'll end up canning it?

That wouldn't shock me either, they've done it before in other exams (Biology had one in 2011 I think), very possible they do it again - Whether it's necessary here I'm not sure, we'll have to wait and see

[Anfar3]

Sorry Jamon, I shouldve been more specific.

When I said content I meant like non-contemporary issues as in the purchasing and leasing of shelter and the issues that come with it. I analysed/evaluated these by writing about reforms and why/how the law changed to achieve justice. I also wrote about 3ish contemporary issues but since I also wrote about "content issues" as in non-contemporary issues I was wondering if that would be considered as not answeing the q. The q itself said with reference to atleast 1 contemporary issue so I took it as u must include a solid dicussion about contemporary issues but there is also a wide scope to talk about more structural/long term issues which are not necessarily contemporary such as the need for greater regulation in tenancy agreements to ahcive justice.

Thanks