The 'look at my work and tell me how to imporve' thread

[chrisjb]

The following is my answer exactly as i wrote it under sac conditions. It was a 50 minute sac, out of 25 marks, and this was worth 8 marks (highest mark question on the sac).

8 Marks on a 20 Mark SAC.

Question

With the Koori Court, Drug Court and recently established specialist Family Violence Court, there are far too many courts in our state system. It has become cumbersome and confusing for the general public. Surely the court system would operate more effectively if Victoria had one large ‘super-court’ only that could hear all disputes.

Critically evaluate this statement in reference to the reasons for a court hierarchy. (including strengths and weaknesses)

Answer

One large ‘super court’, whilst alleviating many problems which exist in the current court system, would not provide the benefits of a court hierarchy- which far outweigh the negatives.

One major benefit of our current system is that specialisation can occur. This means that the courts such as the Drug Court (Magistrates’) and the Family Violence Court (Magistrates’) are able to specialise in a particular field or area of law and therefore deliver better justice. In adition to this, the current system allows for administrative convenience,  whereby lower courts such as the Magistrates’ Court are able to quickly deal with cases they recognise and allow higher courts, who are more experienced to tackle the more serious cases. This means that time is not wasted on small cases.

In addition to these reasons, the court hierarchy allows for an effective appeals system to operate, where more experienced judges can correct and monitor possible mistakes of less experienced judges. This would not be possible in a one-tier court system because here would be no experienced courts to appeal to.

Some problems with the current system which a ‘one-stop-shop’ may fix, however, are the confusion that exists in the community over where and how to access justice. The current system is built on the idea that one needs legal help to gain access to the courts, and a ‘one-stop-shop’ would be more accessible for the public.

Another disadvantage of the current system is that people with more ‘minor’ claims, which can be heard in lower courts such as the Magistrates’ Court do not receive the same legal expertise or attention as cases being heard in higher courts. All cases should be treated equally and a one-tier court system would allow that.

Although there are clear problems with the current system such as cases not being treated equally and difficulty to access, the positives far outweigh these, such as specialisation and administrative convenience as well as the operation of appeals and the doctrine of precedent.


I know, the subject matter of the question and answer is a few months old, but i'll post some newer ones soon for your pleasure.

thanks guys

[chrisjb]

10 Marks on a 20 Mark SAC

Question

Critically evaluate how civil pre-trial and trial procedures aim to guarantee the effective operation of our legal system.

Answer

Civil pre-trial procedures such as discovery, pleadings as well as directions hearings and pre-trial conferences aim to offer an effective legal system by encouraging a timely and fair trial is achieved. In addition to this, aspects of the trial process such as the admissibility of evidence as well as the burden and standard of proof ensure that a fair trial is achieved to a great extent.

The civil pre-trial stages of discovery and pleadings ensure that all questions of law and questions of fact are clarified and it is ensured that both parties understand which of these are in dispute. In addition to this, these the pleadings and discovery stage allow for the defendant to see the claim being made against them, the remedy being sought, as well as the place and mode of trial; as well as allowing the plaintiff to see the points being argued by the defence and the nature of the respondent’s defence. This ensures that a fair trial can be had, because both parties are aware of the other’s evidence and arguments. Also, these stages allow for the basic framework of the case to be clarified to both parties.

The introduction of directions hearings and pre-trial conferences have made the trial and pre-trial process more speedy and fairer. During directions hearings, basic timeframes are able to be set out, and the two parties to the case are able to see all the evidence both for and against them. This ensures that the trial runs smoothly and swiftly. In addition to this, it is often the case that one party may decide at a directions hearing or pre-trial conference that there is too much evidence against them, and settle out of court, further reducing the backlog that effects our court system, and saving both parties time, money and stress.

Processes which occur during the trial, such as the principles of admissibility of evidence can ensure a fair and unbiased hearing for either party. Some evidence, such as hearsay or rumour is not admissible, as it is perceived as not as trustworthy as other forms of evidence. Although it could be argued that this can hinder a fair trial because important evidence may be missed, it is more important that untrustworthy evidence does not jeopardise a trial.

In addition to these, the burden of proof in civil matters rests with the plaintiff. This keeps with the trend that whoever brings a matter to court must prove the respondent to be in the wrong, rather than the other way around. This ensures a fair trial.

Civil pre-trial procedures, such as discovery, pleadings and directions hearings all ensure a speedy and fair trial can be had by both parties. In addition to these, trial processes such as rules regarding admissibility of evidence and the burden and standard of proof all ensure that a fair trial is had by all parties to the case.


this one i screwed up prety badly, i misread the question at first (you can probalby tell that from my first two paragraphs) then I didn't realy answer the question that was asked.