VCE Legal Studies Question Thread

[dsabeta]

Just another question about the whole synthesis thing - when would it be used? Like, for which task words/mark range (i.e. evaluate, discuss, etc)?

[MissSmiley]

Just another question about the whole synthesis thing - when would it be used? Like, for which task words/mark range (i.e. evaluate, discuss, etc)?

Yeah - evaluate, discuss just like you said!
Also with 'to what extent' questions, analyse, apply, assess, examine, establish, justify questions as well
These will for those higher marks - 6, 8,10
You wouldn't really need to synthesise for lower mark questions than this because the question would be so specific.
for e.g. differentiate between summary + indictable offences.
Synthesise is just for broader questions

[TheBamboozler]

Fellas, I'm doing the practice assessment tasks out of the justice and outcomes textbook and I'm currently on chapter 4 question 8 which asks me to find how the principles of justice were sought to be achieved in this case.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/call-for-lone-lplater-who-got-into-strife-and-killed-driver-to-be-spared-jail-20161121-gsu4jt.html

I can't seem to figure out how especially considering how short the article is. I'm wondering if maybe I'm just missing something or if I just have to make assumptions. Thanks in advance!

[MissSmiley]

Fellas, I'm doing the practice assessment tasks out of the justice and outcomes textbook and I'm currently on chapter 4 question 8 which asks me to find how the principles of justice were sought to be achieved in this case.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/call-for-lone-lplater-who-got-into-strife-and-killed-driver-to-be-spared-jail-20161121-gsu4jt.html

I can't seem to figure out how especially considering how short the article is. I'm wondering if maybe I'm just missing something or if I just have to make assumptions. Thanks in advance!

Hey,
So just my thoughts:
1. Fairness = the gravity of the crime was reflected, as the court neglected his defence lawyer's statement and urge that Singh should receive a CCO
2. Equality = Mr Voss is getting a chance to give his victim impact statement, just like Singh's given a chance to defend his case and seek for a plea negotiation
3. Access = Singh's got a chance to have legal rep + have access to a competent court (County court)

Hope this relates to the principles of justice!
Just my thoughts though

[meganrobyn]

Also, on top of MissSmiley's response, make sure you're using recent examples (within the past four years) or else your answers will not be seen as valid by VCAA.

No, the four years only relates to "recent" reforms - don't worry.

[Lear]

Oh wow seriously? I’ve been thinking this whole year that precedents have to be from past 4 years too.

[Poet]

Oh wow seriously? I’ve been thinking this whole year that precedents have to be from past 4 years too.

Me too, at least, that's what my teacher told us. Should we keep it as using only cases from the past 4 years just in case?

[meganrobyn]

No need. There is no "just in case" - outside how your teacher chooses to mark the SACs, of course.

Check the SD for references to "contemporary" examples; I don't remember off the top of my head. If it says "contemporary" examples or cases, try not to make them decades-100 years old. Apart from that, you're fine.

[I\'m Not A Robot]

Hey I was wondering if someone could help me with this question that was on my sac, I had some trouble answering it. It was...

"The use of a jury in criminal cases is pointless and a waste of time because a judge can carry out the task and duties of a jury just as well"- explain what the uses for a jury is and why the judge doesn't decide on the verdict instead.

The question was worth 8 marks. I don't remember the question perfectly, but it was very similar to that.

Thanks in advance

[Poet]

Hey I was wondering if someone could help me with this question that was on my sac, I had some trouble answering it. It was...

"The use of a jury in criminal cases is pointless and a waste of time because a judge can carry out the task and duties of a jury just as well"- explain what the uses for a jury is and why the judge doesn't decide on the verdict instead.

The question was worth 8 marks. I don't remember the question perfectly, but it was very similar to that.

Thanks in advance

Hey! you may not be a robot, but are you a cyborg?

Arguments for this may include:

• Juries are appointed to be completely impartial to the case
• Juries are made up of at least 12 jurors in a criminal proceeding in order to give a diverse range of experience and opinions, therefore making a much more reliable judgement than a single person (judge)
• Juries are given limited information about the accused - they are able to make a decision on the verdict purely through the evidence found in the case brought forth, without knowledge of other crimes or past history of the accused
• The judge's job is to manage the court, not to make the final decision on the verdict. This is due to the fact that the judge must keep the jury and other members of court accountable and therefore may make a mistaken or biased decision if they are left to do it alone, and no risks should be taken in a court case.

Hope this helps you a bit. <3
I'm a Legal student myself, so if I got anything slightly incorrect I will appreciate the feedback.

[clarke54321]

Hey I was wondering if someone could help me with this question that was on my sac, I had some trouble answering it. It was...

"The use of a jury in criminal cases is pointless and a waste of time because a judge can carry out the task and duties of a jury just as well"- explain what the uses for a jury is and why the judge doesn't decide on the verdict instead.

The question was worth 8 marks. I don't remember the question perfectly, but it was very similar to that.

Thanks in advance

In addition to the excellent points provided by secretly_a_poet, I'd encourage you to take a look at question 10 of the VCAA examiner's report. There are some nice insights here.

VCAA examiner reports are wonderful sources for supplementary information.

All the best

[I\'m Not A Robot]

Hey! you may not be a robot, but are you a cyborg?

Arguments for this may include:

• Juries are appointed to be completely impartial to the case
• Juries are made up of at least 12 jurors in a criminal proceeding in order to give a diverse range of experience and opinions, therefore making a much more reliable judgement than a single person (judge)
• Juries are given limited information about the accused - they are able to make a decision on the verdict purely through the evidence found in the case brought forth, without knowledge of other crimes or past history of the accused
• The judge's job is to manage the court, not to make the final decision on the verdict. This is due to the fact that the judge must keep the jury and other members of court accountable and therefore may make a mistaken or biased decision if they are left to do it alone, and no risks should be taken in a court case.

Hope this helps you a bit. <3
I'm a Legal student myself, so if I got anything slightly incorrect I will appreciate the feedback.

Haha, thanks heaps for the reply, really appreciate it.

In addition to the excellent points provided by secretly_a_poet, I'd encourage you to take a look at question 10 of the VCAA examiner's report. There are some nice insights here.

VCAA examiner reports are wonderful sources for supplementary information.

All the best

Thank you! I'll definitely check out that report!

[MissSmiley]

Hello!

I just needed help with a few questions:

1. What are the reasons for the Supreme Court referring cases to mediation?
could one of them be if it's a class action that has a lot of litigation to do with it?

2. What are "negotiation options"? There's a worksheet that asks us to explain three negotiation options, and I'm not sure what this means. For example could VCAT allowing mediation and conciliation and CAV offering conciliation be two examples?
But when arbitration is used in VCAT won't be an example right? Because there's a third party that makes a binding decision?
The study design says "factors to consider when initiating civil claims including negotiation options" so for a moment I got confused if "negotiation options" means like the alternative dispute resolution method of 'negotiation' which was there in the previous study design?
Could you please explain what could come under negotiation options?

3. What is the role of the judge in the pre-trial civil process? This question was from a worksheet on the Bushfire class action case which was settled through "court led-judicial mediation" (I heard this for the first time when I read it!!). Is it just the usual roles of a judge in a civil trial or is it anything different for pre-trial procedures?

Thank you very much!

[MissSmiley]

Hi everyone!

Could I just ask what I could talk about for weaknesses for civil pre-trial procedures?
I tried really hard to think about every pre-trial process, but I'm always seeing strenghts.

Could someone please help me brainstorm?

Thank you very much!

[DoctorTwo]

Hello!

I just needed help with a few questions:

1. What are the reasons for the Supreme Court referring cases to mediation?
could one of them be if it's a class action that has a lot of litigation to do with it?

2. What are "negotiation options"? There's a worksheet that asks us to explain three negotiation options, and I'm not sure what this means. For example could VCAT allowing mediation and conciliation and CAV offering conciliation be two examples?
But when arbitration is used in VCAT won't be an example right? Because there's a third party that makes a binding decision?
The study design says "factors to consider when initiating civil claims including negotiation options" so for a moment I got confused if "negotiation options" means like the alternative dispute resolution method of 'negotiation' which was there in the previous study design?
Could you please explain what could come under negotiation options?

3. What is the role of the judge in the pre-trial civil process? This question was from a worksheet on the Bushfire class action case which was settled through "court led-judicial mediation" (I heard this for the first time when I read it!!). Is it just the usual roles of a judge in a civil trial or is it anything different for pre-trial procedures?

Thank you very much!

1. My textbook (Justice and Outcomes Legal Studies for VCE Units 3 & 4, Oxford) doesn't have much on this but it does say that the power to order parties to attent mediation can assist the 'prompt and economical resolution of a dispute', and that there is a benefit to settling the dispute early, 'without spending the costs of going to trial.' Interstingly, it also says that 'Most if not all civil proceedings in the Supreme Court go to mediation before trial, and mediation is considered successful in helping to resolve disputes. Former Chief Justice Marilyn Warren of the Supreme Court has said tha tthe courts would face difficulties if they did not use mediation.

2. My textbook outlines three negotiation options, which are
-basically, both parties directly negotiating without initiating a claim, the simplest form of negotiation. May or may not involve legal representation and 'involves informal discussions between themselves about the issues in dispute.'
-'arranging between themselves (the parties), with or without legal representation, an independent third party, such as a mediator, to help resolve the dispute.' This is called 'facilitated negotiation'.
-'arranging a negotiation or other dispute resolution service through a body such as the Dispute Settlement Centre of Victoria (free services to help resolve general disputes), or FMC Mediation and Counselling Victoria (dispute resolution services for family conflicts and other disputes).'

3. I'm going to compare the roles of the judge in a criminal trial and civil trial and embolden the similar ones to make the differences obvious:
Criminal: Manage the trial, decide on admissibility of evidence, attend to jury matters, give directions to the jury and sum up the case, hand down a sentence, as well as other minor responsibilities.
Civil: Manage the trial, decide on admissibility of evidence, attend to the jury (if there is one), determine liability and the remedy ('If there is no jury in the trial, the judge must decide whether the plaintiff has established their claim against the defendant, and if so, what remedy, if any, should be awarded'), make a decision on costs ('After each hearing in a civil case, the judge will decide which party should bear the costs. The general rule is that working out costs is left to the end, and the successful party is entitled to costs, but that is not always the case.')

Hi everyone!

Could I just ask what I could talk about for weaknesses for civil pre-trial procedures?
I tried really hard to think about every pre-trial process, but I'm always seeing strenghts.

Could someone please help me brainstorm?

Thank you very much!

I guess they add to delays in achieving justice by extending the time before a case is actually taken to trial. You'd also probably have to pay a lawyer during this stage, and you wouldn't bear that burden if the case had gone straight to trial, instead. My textbook doesn't explicitly state any disadvantages, but that is what I can think of off the top of my head.

I hope these helped!