LEGAL STUDIES EXAM THOUGHTS/DISCUSSION

[chrisjb]

Well that's three marks down, I just realized I also put 44 MLCs instead of 40. Damn me thinking it was half -_-

I don't think you'll lose marks for that.

[andy456]

I didnt write the number.... does that matter???

[saaaaaam]

I didnt write the number.... does that matter???

I shouldn't think so. So long as you provide enough information to get the marks. I didn't mention the number in each house but said it was bi-cameral, and then explained that in reference to the Victorian Parliament. Can't see why that wouldn't get the marks.

[chrisjb]

I didnt write the number.... does that matter???

I shouldn't think so. So long as you provide enough information to get the marks. I didn't mention the number in each house but said it was bi-cameral, and then explained that in reference to the Victorian Parliament. Can't see why that wouldn't get the marks.

And didn't forget the governor.

[AVeryAverageUsername]

I didnt write the number.... does that matter???

I shouldn't think so. So long as you provide enough information to get the marks. I didn't mention the number in each house but said it was bi-cameral, and then explained that in reference to the Victorian Parliament. Can't see why that wouldn't get the marks.

And didn't forget the governor.

Oh thank god. I was 90% sure we needed the governor but had this nagging doubt for some reason. Kept it in though. Good decision 0_0

[chrisjb]

I didnt write the number.... does that matter???

I shouldn't think so. So long as you provide enough information to get the marks. I didn't mention the number in each house but said it was bi-cameral, and then explained that in reference to the Victorian Parliament. Can't see why that wouldn't get the marks.

And didn't forget the governor.

Oh thank god. I was 90% sure we needed the governor but had this nagging doubt for some reason. Kept it in though. Good decision 0_0

I forgot to say bi-cameral or westminster I rushed that question cos it was the last one and I had to get back to Question 11 to finish it off, I just said 'the victorian parliament consists of a lower house (legislative assembly), an upper house (legislative council) and the governer (currently David De Kretza).'

I reckon I lost a mark for not using the term bicameral or westminster.

[claire92]

I loved this exam, very straightfoward, and I finished comfortably with enough time to check answers!

Wrote a very long essay for extended response, (chose B).

I hate the fact that of all the question in the exam, that stupid Q2 threw me off.

[aposta28]

That exam was too easy...

I was happy i got my parliament 10 mark, that i had practiced about 10 times

[aposta28]

Poor people at my school
Some people didnt know what retention meant for Jury

Some person goes to me, i thought it meant not to retain. So said they were against it, but wrote reasons to keep it....

[Christiano]

I didn't finish on time I didn't mention bicameral or westminster for Victorian Parliament. I was also confused about the culpable driving, I put down Magistrates. Didn't finish the question on evaluating the strengths of doctrine of precedent.

It has been the easiest exam so far though.

[Duck]

What swayed me towards Magistrates' court was the fact that he was sentanced to 1500 hours of community service. Surely culpable driving causing death would not get a community based sentance?

[s123456]

people didn't know what retention meant at my school too !! lol i only know it cause of psych ahha

[aposta28]

I am sure that if they thought retention meant to abolish
and wrote reasons for. but said they didnt support abolishment..

I don't think they'll get penalized that bad. lol

[Hakusaki]

"SEAN McCormick, 22-year-old Keysborough man involved in a hit and run accident has been charged at the Dandenong Magistrate’s court on one count of culpable driving and one count of reckless driving."

http://www.criminal-lawyers.com.au/web/page/vic_culpable_driving_causing_death

The county court deals with culpable driving causing death, but culpable driving doesn't necessarily cause death, but death or injury.

I think without the influence of alcohol or another substance, the 250 hours of community service + fine would be too lenient, but it didn't specify that. If those were factors, it would still have been in the Magistrates court according to

http://www.magistratescourt.vic.gov.au/wps/wcm/connect/Magistrates+Court/Home/Traffic+Offences/MAGISTRATES+-+Alcohol+Interlock+-+FAQs

Let me know what you guys think. I'm pretty convinced it's magistrates.

[AVeryAverageUsername]

Would that be indictable tried summarily though? Does anyone remember where Thomas Towle was tried originally? I remember there being an appeal and him being in the Supreme Court at some stage but I can't remember if that was concurrently or not...I know he only got ten years though which would fit indictable held summarily.

That of course just raises the question...would it more likely to be a straight indictable or indictable held summarily according to VCAA?