VCE Legal Studies Question Thread

[MissSmiley]

Hey guys!

Another question,
What is considered to be a 'reasonable' delay?

Yeah, I agree to some extent, The Special One! Nevertheless, I LOVE memorising for Legal Studies!!

(Guess because I want to do Law at Uni !!

[The Special One]

Hey guys!

Another question,
What is considered to be a 'reasonable' delay?

Yeah, I agree to some extent, The Special One! Nevertheless, I LOVE memorising for Legal Studies!!

(Guess because I want to do Law at Uni !!

To answer your question it's intentionally left ambiguous. And is a problem for many as it's very hard to define a reasonable time.

Like when prisoners are detained without bail for a reasonable amount of time what constitutes a reasonable amount of time? Very hard to say and it's not clear one of the problems with the law you can bring up.

I'm very happy for you that you enjoy memorising legal coursework and legislature. Future law student perhaps? It's a very good thing to enjoy the subject you're doing.

Unfortunately for many they find it hard to stay interested and invested into the subject with so much going on so the closed book exam is very difficult for them. More so than any subjects like further which is open book.

[Lear]

Hey guys!

Another question,
What is considered to be a 'reasonable' delay?

Yeah, I agree to some extent, The Special One! Nevertheless, I LOVE memorising for Legal Studies!!

(Guess because I want to do Law at Uni !!

Hey, the common reason is probably gathering and processing of forensics. Sometimes this type of stuff takes a significant amount of time and due to that the Police may ask for extra time.

[MissSmiley]

To answer your question it's intentionally left ambiguous. And is a problem for many as it's very hard to define a reasonable time.

Like when prisoners are detained without bail for a reasonable amount of time what constitutes a reasonable amount of time? Very hard to say and it's not clear one of the problems with the law you can bring up.

I'm very happy for you that you enjoy memorising legal coursework and legislature. Future law student perhaps? It's a very good thing to enjoy the subject you're doing.

Unfortunately for many they find it hard to stay interested and invested into the subject with so much going on so the closed book exam is very difficult for them. More so than any subjects like further which is open book.

Ok...
So for e.g. the right to be tried without unreasonable delay, could reasonable delay be like:
- the time it takes for the accused's legal representative and the Prosecution to exchange hand-up briefs and time it takes for any pre-trial procedures
- the time it takes to find an interpreter (if the accused needs to have one)
- sexual offences must commence their trial within 3 months of the case being committed to trial
- other offences must commence their trial within 12 months of the case being committed to trial

And then would the fact that County Court trials normally only commence 8-12 months after the accused has been charged, would that sorta be unreasonable delay?

Thanks so much !! Really appreciate the help !!

[MissSmiley]

Hey, the common reason is probably gathering and processing of forensics. Sometimes this type of stuff takes a significant amount of time and due to that the Police may ask for extra time.

Great! Hadn't thought of that before! Thank you!

Stemming on from that, could we say just gathering and processing any type of evidence?
And also the time it takes for scrutinising whether the evidence is admissible or not for the trial in court. (would this be ok?)

[The Special One]

Ok...
So for e.g. the right to be tried without unreasonable delay, could reasonable delay be like:
- the time it takes for the accused's legal representative and the Prosecution to exchange hand-up briefs and time it takes for any pre-trial procedures
- the time it takes to find an interpreter (if the accused needs to have one)
- sexual offences must commence their trial within 3 months of the case being committed to trial
- other offences must commence their trial within 12 months of the case being committed to trial

And then would the fact that County Court trials normally only commence 8-12 months after the accused has been charged, would that sorta be unreasonable delay?

Thanks so much !! Really appreciate the help !!

No worries, and yeah what you have written sounds great.  You could definitely  interpret it as going beyond a reasonable delay.

Much of the law we have is open to interpretation, that's what High Court  judges spend most of their time doing with cases related to the constitution.

When it comes to interpretation judges rarely agree haha if the law was so rigid and not open to interpretatIon we wouldn't need  courts of appeal

[MissSmiley]

Also, could I ask,
how does the right to give evidence as a vulnerable witness adhere to fairness?

(just a bit confused, because I always thought about it as enabling access. Everyone should be able to access the legal system and so vulnerable witnesses should not be at a disadvantage when accessing the court. (just because they'll feel intimidated and then won't go to court)

Now when I think about this, doesn't it link to equality as well? in that they shouldn't be disadvantaged? Or you could look at it the other way as it inhibits equality because then these witnesses receive an advantage over other witnesses who'll give testimony as normal witnesses (I mean those who are not a vulnerable witness)

could you just explain how that right relates to any of the principles?  (or can it be interpreted in several ways?) I still don't get the fairness though!

Thank you so much!!

[Lear]

Great! Hadn't thought of that before! Thank you!

Stemming on from that, could we say just gathering and processing any type of evidence?
And also the time it takes for scrutinising whether the evidence is admissible or not for the trial in court. (would this be ok?)

Yes I believe gathering and processing evidence is a perfect response to this type of question.
Scrutinizing whether evidence is admissible or not is done by the judge and therefore would also be an example of a reasonable delay. However, I do not think this is a significant delay as I doubt it takes longer than a few days. According to my teacher the simplest and most straightforward response is simply gathering and processing evidence as this is required to start the case in the first place. Without sufficient evidence a case is unlikely to be approved by the magistrate in the committal proceedings to go to trial. Because of that the police ensures they have all the evidence they need before the committal proceedings and this can take time.

A good case for this is DPP v Debs & Roberts [2003] VSC 30 (24 February 2003)
The two accused of murdering two police officers in 1998 were charged in 2001 and only then sentenced in 2003. This significant time gap was considered reasonable due to the difficulty in processing and establishing evidence.

[The Special One]

Also, could I ask,
how does the right to give evidence as a vulnerable witness adhere to fairness?

(just a bit confused, because I always thought about it as enabling access. Everyone should be able to access the legal system and so vulnerable witnesses should not be at a disadvantage when accessing the court. (just because they'll feel intimidated and then won't go to court)

Now when I think about this, doesn't it link to equality as well? in that they shouldn't be disadvantaged? Or you could look at it the other way as it inhibits equality because then these witnesses receive an advantage over other witnesses who'll give testimony as normal witnesses (I mean those who are not a vulnerable witness)

could you just explain how that right relates to any of the principles?  (or can it be interpreted in several ways?) I still don't get the fairness though!

Thank you so much!!

I think you have it downpat  you've noticed a contradiction  between two underlying legal principles

One is yes it does improve access to the legal system for everyone. You've covered that fairly well. The other point you made is also it's unfair it gives vulnerable witnesses an advantage. That goes against the legal principal of equity.

Same argument can be made with the Koori court offering special treatment yes it improved access to the legal system but also may be perceived as being advantageous for one group of people when everyone should be equal.

This discrepancy is common as our legal system isn't perfect. Look at the separation of powers, works great in theory but in practice the powers overlap and are not equal.

The reason this is in the study design is to get students to critically evaluate the legal system.

That's why some last exams asked what are some recommendations for improving the system.

I actually think you've understood the question quite well and identified the contraction if it's asked In a question you should say how it both supports a legal principle and contradicts another. This evaluation is required, and it's good your asking questions like these, it's what's needed for those top marks.

EDIT

fixed some typos lol I really shouldn't be typing these lengthy responses on my phone.

[MissSmiley]

I think you have it downpat  you've noticed a contradiction  between two underlying legal principles

One is yes it does improve access to the legal system for everyone. You've covered that fairly well. The other point you made is also it's unfair it gives vulnerable witnesses an advantage. That goes against the legal principal of equity.

Same argument can be made with the Koori court offering special treatment yes it improved access to the legal system but also may be perceived as being advantageous for one group of people when everyone should be equal.

This discrepancy is common as our legal system isn't perfect. Look at the separation of powers, works great in theory but in practice the powers overlap and are not equal.

The reason this is in the study design is to get students to critically evaluate the legal system.

That's why some last exams asked what are some recommendations for improving the system.

I actually think you've understood the question quite well and identified the contraction if it's asked In a question you should say how it both supports a legal principle and contradicts another. This evaluation is required, and it's good your asking questions like these, it's what's needed for those top marks.

EDIT

fixed some typos lol I really shouldn't be typing these lengthy responses on my phone.

Thank you so much, The Special One !!

You've been so supportive!! Thank you so much!!

Yeah!! I've always been waiting for any question that'll ask me to include reforms!! 
But what's happening is that our school's said the highest mark on the SAC will be a 6 marker. So I asked my teacher if we needed to have reforms for a 6 mark question and she said include them if you can. But don't just put it in there just for 'chucking it in' ! 

So I guess I'll just have to see the 6 marker, what it's about and see if any reforms I've looked at (mostly for unreasonable delay, cultural differences, presumption of innocence (not technically a reform, but still an example from contemporary media) can fit in while I'm answering that question...

But the second part of this SAC (criminal sanctions, plea and charge negotiations, institutions, role of court personnel, etc) definitely likes to ask about reforms, so I guess I can have a bit of fun with that !

Thank you so much !!

[MissSmiley]

A couple of questions!

Explain how the position of the Magistrates' Court in Victoria's court hierarchy will affect the offences that it can hear.

Could I talk about how because it's the lowest court, it cannot hear appeal cases?
Also the fact that because it's the first court in the hierarchy every summary offence (and indictable offence heard summarily) would be heard here and because majority of the offences are summary offences, then this creates time pressure for the court? And it's likely that some cases would be paid less attention that what is needed for them? (just because there's such a strict time limit for every case)

Any other points?

Also, are committal hearings conducted for summary offences too?

Thanks so much!!

[Glasses]

A couple of questions!

Explain how the position of the Magistrates' Court in Victoria's court hierarchy will affect the offences that it can hear.

Could I talk about how because it's the lowest court, it cannot hear appeal cases?
Also the fact that because it's the first court in the hierarchy every summary offence (and indictable offence heard summarily) would be heard here and because majority of the offences are summary offences, then this creates time pressure for the court? And it's likely that some cases would be paid less attention that what is needed for them? (just because there's such a strict time limit for every case)

Any other points?

Also, are committal hearings conducted for summary offences too?

Thanks so much!!

What you've got written for that seems fine. That being said, unless you have evidence to back up the claim that some cases get less attention, I wouldn't mention it. I'm stick to your first two points; i.e. that the position of the Magistrates' Court at the bottom of the hierarchy means that it cannot hear appeal cases, and that it hears all summary offences (and some indictable offences heard summarily).
Additionally, you could mention that the Magistrates' Court is limited in that it cannot hear more serious indictable offences, such as murder.

And no, committal hearings are not conducted for summary offences

[MissSmiley]

What you've got written for that seems fine. That being said, unless you have evidence to back up the claim that some cases get less attention, I wouldn't mention it. I'm stick to your first two points; i.e. that the position of the Magistrates' Court at the bottom of the hierarchy means that it cannot hear appeal cases, and that it hears all summary offences (and some indictable offences heard summarily).
Additionally, you could mention that the Magistrates' Court is limited in that it cannot hear more serious indictable offences, such as murder.

And no, committal hearings are not conducted for summary offences

Ok ! Thank you so much!
Yes, good point about the court not being able to hear indictable offences!

Thanks a lot, Glasses !

[MissSmiley]

Hi guys,
Just with my earlier question, guess what! They had explained it in our textbook! It's just that I didn't quite agree with the answer, so probably raced over it...

Question:  In Victoria, all indictable offences are heard by a jury (when the accused pleads guilty). But other states accused can apply to have a case heard by judge alone. WHY?? (Has this got something to do with the Constitution?)

The answer that my textbook says:
"In NSW, Queensland, SA, WA and ACT, it is possible to apply to have a trial heard by judge alone, without a jury, when charged with an indictable offence under State legislation. Such an application might be made if an accused and his or her legal representative are concerned about pre-trial publicity hindering a fair hearing or if the jury does not approach the case impartially."

But then I thought "avoiding pre-trial publicity" can't be an 'excuse' or reason for applying whether you want a judge alone or with the jury.
Wouldn't accused in Victoria feel they'd get pre-trial publicity which will limit their right to a fair hearing?
Regardless of whether an accused in Victoria feels so, they must get a trial by jury if they plead not guilty to an indictable offence.

Would love your thoughts!!

Thank you!

[MissSmiley]

Hey guys!

Could I just ask,
are there any members of society that are considered vulnerable or those who need special arrangements whilst giving evidence, but our criminal justice system does not give them those arrangements?

I was thinking about disabled people, but if anyone could correct me or suggest me some more groups of people, that'll help me so much !!!

Thanks guys!!