VCE Legal Studies Question Thread

[meganrobyn]

Hey! What are all the things we need to talk about when asked to discuss the ability of courts as lawmakers?

'Discuss' means much the same as evaluate, analyse, etc, so have a look at both sides of the argument.

Effectiveness in terms of courts means both their ability to make law AND their desirability as law-makers - so those two components really opens it up.

[vashappenin]

Ok so this is what I think are the typical questions for the DPs of aos3. My SAC is tomorrow, so I guess this is good revision for me. If there's anything I missed out on, or included that shouldn't have been, correct me!

• the ability of judges and courts to make law
      -  comment on the judge's ability to make law WHAT DO I TALK ABOUT HERE? :s is it just the 2 ways courts can make law and limitations on this ability?
      -  how are judges limited in their ability to make law?
      -  explain the process of lawmaking by courts (2 ways and elaborate on them)
      -  discuss the ability of courts to change the law

• doctrine of precedent
      - critically evaluate the process of doctrine of precedent; when mentioning RODD, do I always have to define them all?

• statutory interpretation
      - explain reasons for statutory interpretation
      - what are some effects of statutory interpretation?

• parliament and the courts
      - explain the relationship between parliament and the courts in lawmaking
      - critically evaluate courts as lawmakers

is there anything I missed out on that I could potentially be asked?

[jeanweasley]

WHAT DO I TALK ABOUT HERE? :s is it just the 2 ways courts can make law and limitations on this ability?

Yes. But you can also be asked whether judges should or shouldn't make law. Eg. Courts should not be able to change law. Here, you're meant to use the info just for a normal question but you have to have a contention or a judgement where you can say that although judges can change laws, they do not do it as often as Parliament because their main role is dispute resolution.

when mentioning RODD, do I always have to define them all?

Yes, I think you have to if it is a "critically evaluate" question because you have to explain how judges can be flexible. However, one must note that disapproving doesn't really offer flexibility.

Okay, here are some potential questions:

• To what extent are judges bound to follow binding precedent in similar fact situations? Justify your answer.
• The courts should not be allowed to make laws - Kate, Brunswick. Justify your answer whether the courts should or should not be able to make laws.
• Explain a judge's role in regards to statutory interpretation. Why do judges have to interpret statutes? In your explanation, explain the effects of statutory interpretation with the use of an illustrative example.

[vashappenin]

Yes. But you can also be asked whether judges should or shouldn't make law. Eg. Courts should not be able to change law. Here, you're meant to use the info just for a normal question but you have to have a contention or a judgement where you can say that although judges can change laws, they do not do it as often as Parliament because their main role is dispute resolution.
Yes, I think you have to if it is a "critically evaluate" question because you have to explain how judges can be flexible. However, one must note that disapproving doesn't really offer flexibility.

Okay, here are some potential questions:

• To what extent are judges bound to follow binding precedent in similar fact situations? Justify your answer.
• The courts should not be allowed to make laws - Kate, Brunswick. Justify your answer whether the courts should or should not be able to make laws.
• Explain a judge's role in regards to statutory interpretation. Why do judges have to interpret statutes? In your explanation, explain the effects of statutory interpretation with the use of an illustrative example.

Ok thanks! For whether they should or shouldnt make laws do you just evaluate courts as lawmakers?
And for your second suggested question, is that also kind of an evaluation of them with your opinion stated as well?
What do you talk about yo explain a judges role in regards to statutory interpretation

[jeanweasley]

Ok thanks! For whether they should or shouldnt make laws do you just evaluate courts as lawmakers?
And for your second suggested question, is that also kind of an evaluation of them with your opinion stated as well?
What do you talk about yo explain a judges role in regards to statutory interpretation

1. This was a question on a previous VCAA exam and I'm pretty sure you can definitely attack that way. But what I meant in the question was to discuss the instances where judges CAN make law and the LIMITATIONS that they have, and then have a little judgement/opinion to say that judges don't always make laws. In attacking it your way, I think you can also say that the courts as law-makers are good lawmakers but that they should work in conjunction with Parliament as Parl has expertise and that because of the court's limitations, they cannot make or change laws as quickly as Parl can.
2. Yes.
3. It's asking why sometimes judges have to interpret the meaning of an Act.

[vashappenin]

Ok thankyou! A lot of this stuff is really confusing for me, especially in terms to what to talk about for different types of questions :S

[awesomejames]

Does anyone know the name of the case heard in the supreme court in the 1980's when they created a new law (precedent) in regards to the use of IVF technology because the case had no law existed in that area yet.
 The facts of the case were
•   An American couple came to Melbourne and got onto the IVF program. A number of the woman’s eggs were fertilised with her husband’s sperm and frozen for later use. The couple returned to the U.S and were both killed in an air crash.
•   A dispute arose over what should happen to the frozen fertilized eggs.
•   The decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria in this case created a new law (a precedent), because before this case no law existed in this area.
•   The Victorian Parliament had not made any laws to regulate IVF technology, nor had any court anywhere in the world been called upon to settle a similar dispute involving this new form of reproductive technology; so there were no precedents, binding or persuasive, that the Supreme Court could refer to.

[jeanweasley]

Does anyone know the name of the case heard in the supreme court in the 1980's when they created a new law (precedent) in regards to the use of IVF technology because the case had no law existed in that area yet.

Is it the York v. Jones (1989) case?

On another note, just finished my Legal SAC today and we had FOUR questions, but most were extended answers though. I think I did well.

[AbominableMowman]

On another note, just finished my Legal SAC today and we had FOUR questions, but most were extended answers though. I think I did well.

My sac had four questions too although some of them were split into two.. I got 24/25 BUT I LOST HALF MARKS

[jeanweasley]

My sac had four questions too although some of them were split into two.. I got 24/25 BUT I LOST HALF MARKS

Whoa. Teachers still do half marks?
Congrats on the score.

[AbominableMowman]

Whoa. Teachers still do half marks?
Congrats on the score.

There were two one mark questions on two cases.. I think it was the trigwell case and another one.. I didn't exactly know what to write for the questions so i left them till the end and ended up outlining the whole case for each question (like 8 lines worth of writing), and i lost  half marks for each question.
Thanks, but i could've done better LOL

[tcstudent]

Sorry if this is irrelevant to the thread, but when you guys create questions from each chapter, do you get them from past exams on the vcaa or ask your teacher to create some for you, im on chapter 4 of the legal studies book which is the role of the courts as law makers. im really wondering if you guys have any questions you use, that you could post here that would assist me with chapter 4 please.
thanks

[AbominableMowman]

Sorry if this is irrelevant to the thread, but when you guys create questions from each chapter, do you get them from past exams on the vcaa or ask your teacher to create some for you, im on chapter 4 of the legal studies book which is the role of the courts as law makers. im really wondering if you guys have any questions you use, that you could post here that would assist me with chapter 4 please.
thanks

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/11s46o44vlk0t02/S4-d-KZKFQ
Here's some of my practice questions and other stuff on Outcome 3..

[jeanweasley]

There were two one mark questions on two cases.. I think it was the trigwell case and another one.. I didn't exactly know what to write for the questions so i left them till the end and ended up outlining the whole case for each question (like 8 lines worth of writing), and i lost  half marks for each question.
Thanks, but i could've done better LOL

Nah, it was an impressive score. Have you already started Unit 4?

Sorry if this is irrelevant to the thread, but when you guys create questions from each chapter, do you get them from past exams on the vcaa or ask your teacher to create some for you, im on chapter 4 of the legal studies book which is the role of the courts as law makers. im really wondering if you guys have any questions you use, that you could post here that would assist me with chapter 4 please.
thanks

Hey there! Most of the questions that I get are either from Legal Notes(the study guide), the textbook and VCAA. And sometimes I make my own.

[AbominableMowman]

Nah, it was an impressive score. Have you already started Unit 4?

We have Unit 3 trial exams so we've just been doing Unit 3 revision.. but I believe we're starting next week. Are you guys still doing outcome 3 :O