Im pretty sure it was all about the adversary? AS Jury is not a part of the Adversary ! also a restriction i said for commonwealth = can make laws on religion, then explained. (also about the tribunal question i only gave 1 strength + 1 weakness and related it to effective access for mechanisms - but i wrote the strength/weakness in full detail covering the whole page - there would i be expecting to get ? 3/4 out of 5? my strength = adversary is less expensive, and for weakness = starting to become costly, due to more reliance on legal representative. I did it in detail so would i be able to achieve 3 or 4 out of 5?
ALSO - the question on police powers/ individual rights after arrest i wrote in detail = person right, that they can apply for bail,they get released from custody.. etc and bail does not have to be granted in certain cirumcstance. However for police powers i wrote = they can fingerprint person aged 15+ (10-15 childrens court order) and 15-16 must have parent guardian there.
So how do u think that sound guys?
Yeah, it was all about the adversary. Nothing about the jury for that question.
For your strength/weakness of tribunals - I'd say you'd probably get a 3 because you explained in depth. But the less you write, whilst still getting your point across, the more knowledge you are showing. If you're succinct about the link and the explanation and can do it in as little words as possible whilst still getting the full effect, you'll get more marks than someone who flutters about trying to explain it in a lot of words.
What you wrote about police/individual rights sounds about right. I used the right to silence so as to not incriminate himself, even though the individual has to give their name and address upon request. For the police power, I did the right to DNA sampling with permission or court order. Didn't explain the age barriers thing, hope it still counts. It was still only an
identify question, and did not ask to explain. So, meh.