VCE Legal Studies Question Thread

[billius1]

Thanks
So ultimately - am I allowed to just use my knowledge of strengths and weaknesses from ADR methods such as mediation to evaluate VCAT or do they want emphasis on arbitration?
Like for example a strength would be lack of strick rules of procedure.. a weakness to this would be unsuitable for parties with imbalanced power in methods such as mediation when there's negotiation?

Yeah, what you need to do is just think about it as a real life situation. if you think something would be a strength in real life, explain in what circumstance and why it is advantageous.
for example, tribunals such as VCAT are often much cheaper than other forms of dispute resolution, such as litigation. This is because legal representation is generally not used, and so a range of people are able to gain access to this mechanism of achieving justice (linking it to an effective legal system which is always good for unit 4 evaluations). HOWEVER (the big however is what makes it an evaluation), sometimes in more complex cases, the cost of tribunal settlement can become very expensive if the case goes on for a long period, particularly if evidence needs to be gathered. (to make it a critical evaluation -which you should always do even if it asks for just an evaluation) While this diminishes the financial effectiveness of VCAT, it is overshadowed by the comparative difference to the cost of litigation. (and here's the concluding statement) As such, VCAT is overall effective as a dispute settlement body, because  it is more financially viable for many cases than court settlement.

Textbooks don't set the strengths and weaknesses up like that (A+ notes comes close but still not quite), so you need to take the txtbook info as just a pool of information and mix and match whatever you see as sensibly fit.

[nacho]

judicial determination is referring to arbitration. VCAT mainly uses arbitration to settle the more serious disputes, and so the decision is binding in those cases. however when mediation/negotiation/conciliation can be employed, they are, and in those instances, the decision (as you know) is not binding. So VCAT does a number of things, you can't say all are binding or all aren't - it's both.

I thought judicial determination was just taking to a matter to court / and was different from arbitration?

[eeps]

judicial determination is referring to arbitration. VCAT mainly uses arbitration to settle the more serious disputes, and so the decision is binding in those cases. however when mediation/negotiation/conciliation can be employed, they are, and in those instances, the decision (as you know) is not binding. So VCAT does a number of things, you can't say all are binding or all aren't - it's both.

I thought judicial determination was just taking to a matter to court / and was different from arbitration?

They are different. Judicial determination is as you say, taking a matter to court. Arbitration is used as a last-resort method in VCAT, when mediation/conciliation etc. hasn't worked. The only real difference between the two methods is the issue of costs. Generally, using judicial determination is significantly more expensive than going through arbitration (VCAT).

[playsimme]

So I could say a corresponding weakness to costs for VCAT is the fact that mediation could fail and increase costs if arbitration is used; which could involve a party bringing legal rep which forces the other to bring legal rep too?

[eeps]

So I could say a corresponding weakness to costs for VCAT is the fact that mediation could fail and increase costs if arbitration is used; which could involve a party bringing legal rep which forces the other to bring legal rep too?

Yes. With mediation/conciliation, there may be a lack of finality - as the outcome of the two ADRs are not legally-binding. Keep in mind that there is a right to appeal from VCAT (to the Victorian Supreme Court), or to the Court of Appeal if it's from the president/vice-president of VCAT. And that only increases time and costs for the parties.

[playsimme]

Also when describing a referendum for example the 1967 aboriginal one.. must I include section numbers or is a description suffice? I've read past reports and they seem to note that numbers etc. aren't necessary for a top response

[eeps]

Also when describing a referendum for example the 1967 aboriginal one.. must I include section numbers or is a description suffice? I've read past reports and they seem to note that numbers etc. aren't necessary for a top response

No, you don’t have to. If you can clearly explain what the 1967 referendum was and its’ effect; then that is enough. Quoting correct sections of the Constitution shows a greater depth of knowledge, but that’s really it. You don’t get any more marks for quoting the correct section than an answer which explains everything succinctly.

[billius1]

Also when describing a referendum for example the 1967 aboriginal one.. must I include section numbers or is a description suffice? I've read past reports and they seem to note that numbers etc. aren't necessary for a top response

No, you don’t have to. If you can clearly explain what the 1967 referendum was and its’ effect; then that is enough. Quoting correct sections of the Constitution shows a greater depth of knowledge, but that’s really it. You don’t get any more marks for quoting the correct section than an answer which explains everything succinctly.

you never need to actually quote the constitution (that would be unreasonable) you can just paraphrase. that's when your referring to a particular case.
you do however need to know the sections and sub sections for specific constitutional cases mentioned in the study design, for example how interpretation has changed the division of powers, s109, s128, the sections that restrict the cth, the referral power section (cant remember it off the top of my head) and any others where the actual section is what the question is about, not just an example .
so i think you should make the effort to remember them. when you have memorised them (after a little rote work), i think it helps remember things anyway because you can associate a single number to a big chunk of information

[whitecatdisguised]

What's the relationship that exists between the Upper house and Lower house of both the Commonwealth/Victorian Parliament?

[playsimme]

Bills from the lower house pass to the upper house, the upper house acts as a house of review and can reject the bill

[playsimme]

Just for info can soemone explain to me what happens if a commital hearing determines there's insufficient evidence to proceed?

[billius1]

Just for info can soemone explain to me what happens if a commital hearing determines there's insufficient evidence to proceed?

one of 2 things:
a)  the prosecution goes and gathers more evidence until they have a prima facie case (sufficient evidence for conviction)
b) the charge is dropped

depends on the type of crime. only less serious ones get dropped

[billius1]

Bills from the lower house pass to the upper house, the upper house acts as a house of review and can reject the bill

it's not always senate reviewing  the house. make sure you write 'usually' when you write that

[bodriagin]

Hi guys/girls,

I'm sure this has been posted PLENTY of times but I'm still unsure.

What exactly IS judicial determination?

Is it a form of ADR or is it actual court resolution (taking a civil matter to court)?

I really do need a full explanation of it because there's been so many different responses from so many sources that I have read. There's also an extremely confusing flowchart in my textbook (Key Concepts in VCE Legal Studies) that shows judicial determination being used in criminal disputes, when above it, it clearly states that it can only be used in civil disputes.

I'M SO CONFUSED!

[billius1]

Hi guys/girls,

I'm sure this has been posted PLENTY of times but I'm still unsure.

What exactly IS judicial determination?

Is it a form of ADR or is it actual court resolution (taking a civil matter to court)?

I really do need a full explanation of it because there's been so many different responses from so many sources that I have read. There's also an extremely confusing flowchart in my textbook (Key Concepts in VCE Legal Studies) that shows judicial determination being used in criminal disputes, when above it, it clearly states that it can only be used in civil disputes.

I'M SO CONFUSED!

as i understand it, judicial determination is VCAA's way of saying court resolution.  It only refers to civil disputes, NOT criminal. My reasons for saying this come from the study design. If you type in judicial determination in the search bar in the study design's pdf, in the unit 2 section it explicitly states that it's for civil disputes only. I think they just assume that people carry on from that to unit 4. Also, the fact that in the dot point on your study design, it says 'dispute resolution methods used by the courts and VCAT'. it wouldn't say 'and VCAT' if it was referring to criminal as well. They seemed to have clumped it all together, which implies theyre talking about the common cases between VCAT and the courts.
It's not a form of ADR, because i believe the study design has discarded that term, but even if it hadn't, judicial determination would be the DR without the A if you get what i mean. conciliation, mediation, arbitration are the alternatives to it..but judicial determination itself is not an alternative, it's the actual thing (sorry if this is unclear)

If you're saying that every resource has something different, i don't think VCAA will include a question on it until the books are amended, so don't stress too much. but just for your own peace of mind, it's only civil, and it's not ADR, it's the main means of dispute resolution through the courts, and can be used in VCAT when it's the president (who is part of the judiciary) who is hearing the case.

hope this helps!