How did everyone find it?

[michak]

We have always been told that the supreme court has two divisions with different jurisidictions  but are still part of the same court
As a result i said disapproving because they don't have to follow their previous decisions

I am going to be very angry if i have been taught the wrong thing (in regards on being on the same level) for the last two years 

[KristyDanielle]

Bloody VCAA the better accept both because there will be an uproar even if its just me
Megan could you also answer the question about the precedent on the court of appeal and trial division?

Well, in my opinion and if I were sitting the exam I would think distinguishing is the only available answer (assuming the cases are on the same area of law, ha ha) - unless I'm missing something??

The question was worded as similar to: "The court hierachy is important as it allows for the doctrine of precedent to operate and sets up the jurisdictions of the courts." With this added does it provide an option of any other possible answer? (Hint, hint - I might not have answered with distinguishing... sigh)

[meganrobyn]

Bloody VCAA the better accept both because there will be an uproar even if its just me
Megan could you also answer the question about the precedent on the court of appeal and trial division?

Well, in my opinion and if I were sitting the exam I would think distinguishing is the only available answer (assuming the cases are on the same area of law, ha ha) - unless I'm missing something??

The question was worded as similar to: "The court hierachy is important as it allows for the doctrine of precedent to operate and sets up the jurisdictions of the courts." With this added does it provide an option of any other possible answer? (Hint, hint - I might not have answered with distinguishing... sigh)

I can't think of any other grounds, sorry. But really don't worry too much; you knew the course well, and you can never tell how the overall mark is going to come out in the wash.

[meganrobyn]

Bloody VCAA the better accept both because there will be an uproar even if its just me
Megan could you also answer the question about the precedent on the court of appeal and trial division?

Well, in my opinion and if I were sitting the exam I would think distinguishing is the only available answer (assuming the cases are on the same area of law, ha ha) - unless I'm missing something??

The question was worded as similar to: "The court hierachy is important as it allows for the doctrine of precedent to operate and sets up the jurisdictions of the courts." With this added does it provide an option of any other possible answer? (Hint, hint - I might not have answered with distinguishing... sigh)

I can't think of any other grounds, sorry. But really don't worry too much; you knew the course well, and you can never tell how the overall mark is going to come out in the wash.

Hang on - maybe if parliament has since abrogated it? That would be another.

[Jezza]

Hi Megan, I'm just wondering what score would be required to obtain a score of 40?

Sacs:
I lost 5 marks in Unit 3
I lost 1 mark in Unit 4

My ranking was either 3rd or 4th out of 18 students.

[meganrobyn]

Hi Megan, I'm just wondering what score would be required to obtain a score of 40?

Sacs:
I lost 5 marks in Unit 3
I lost 1 mark in Unit 4

My ranking was either 3rd or 4th out of 18 students.

Last year it was 87% but in 2010 it was 90%. Doesn't matter what marks you got in SACs - only matters how the cohort went on the exam.

[Jezza]

Hi Megan, I'm just wondering what score would be required to obtain a score of 40?

Sacs:
I lost 5 marks in Unit 3
I lost 1 mark in Unit 4

My ranking was either 3rd or 4th out of 18 students.

Last year it was 87% but in 2010 it was 90%. Doesn't matter what marks you got in SACs - only matters how the cohort went on the exam.

What are you predicting it to be this year. Higher than 2011 or roughly the same?

[connej]

Don't worry about one question it was only 2 marks
Im sure you did really well with the rest of the paper

Thanks! I hope. However I think I got the Court of Appeal precedent question wrong too. Damn. Are you absolutely sure it was proclamation?

Well it said royal assent had already been given - as in the past tense
also it was an extract from the commonwealth gazette which is where parliament notifies the public what has been become law
So im pretty sure

Just because you think it was proclamation doesn't mean it is, it can be argued both ways. Proclamation is a result of royal assent so they are somewhat connected. There was no date given either. It was a really odd question to me

[michak]

Don't worry about one question it was only 2 marks
Im sure you did really well with the rest of the paper

Thanks! I hope. However I think I got the Court of Appeal precedent question wrong too. Damn. Are you absolutely sure it was proclamation?

Well it said royal assent had already been given - as in the past tense
also it was an extract from the commonwealth gazette which is where parliament notifies the public what has been become law
So im pretty sure

Just because you think it was proclamation doesn't mean it is, it can be argued both ways. Proclamation is a result of royal assent so they are somewhat connected. There was no date given either. It was a really odd question to me

I'm not saying that it could only be proclamation
It can defiantely be both
You would think that VCAA would give both

[sabrin.s95]

I don't know. I'm still not convinced about the answer of proclamation. Are you guys sure its not royal assent...anyway it was only two marks..

[michak]

I don't know. I'm still not convinced about the answer of proclamation. Are you guys sure its not royal assent...anyway it was only two marks..

i can see that it can be royal assent
it may come down to how you explained your reasoning
Well for some people 2 marks is a big deal, i know it is for me - legal will probably determine my ATAR and i need a very high A+

[Everlasting Insanity]

Was question 10 how courts can CHANGE laws and to what extent- was that about statutory interpretation? Courts can interpret acts and add or alter the meaning of them,...eg- narrowing scope of legislation. - Deing V Tarola 1993 case-?

For the first question- I wrote it was proclaimation.
For  the last question- I explained referendums. Talked about express, implied and structural protection.
Then talked about how the high court is the gaurdian of the commonwealth constitution, using Roach as an example.

I stuffed up on the Supreme court question though.

[KristyDanielle]

Was question 10 how courts can CHANGE laws and to what extent- was that about statutory interpretation? Courts can interpret acts and add or alter the meaning of them,...eg- narrowing scope of legislation. - Deing V Tarola 1993 case-?

For the first question- I wrote it was proclaimation.
For  the last question- I explained referendums. Talked about express, implied and structural protection.
Then talked about how the high court is the gaurdian of the commonwealth constitution, using Roach as an example.

I stuffed up on the Supreme court question though.

My god, sometimes I think legal studies isn't even about your knowledge, it's more like a comprehension exercise as to how one reads the question! I found the questions very unclear and that I had to really analyse it to work out what I was meant to write.

Question 10 - I saw that as court's ability to make laws (for instance, some judges can be conservative, courts can broaden the law through stat interpretation etc).

Last question - I did the exact same as you

[morgs21]

Was question 10 how courts can CHANGE laws and to what extent- was that about statutory interpretation? Courts can interpret acts and add or alter the meaning of them,...eg- narrowing scope of legislation. - Deing V Tarola 1993 case-?

For the first question- I wrote it was proclaimation.
For  the last question- I explained referendums. Talked about express, implied and structural protection.
Then talked about how the high court is the gaurdian of the commonwealth constitution, using Roach as an example.

I stuffed up on the Supreme court question though.

For that question I mentioned how courts can change precedent (reversing, overruling and disapproving) which is effectively changing common law.
I also talked about how interpreting statutes can change the meaning of words in legislation (hence changing the law to an extent) and that one of the effects of statutory interpretation may be parliament taking action to abrogate a precedent, clarify or codify the law. Don't know how accurate that is but hopefully it will score most marks :/

And seriously everyone needs to relax about the first question, I'm sure they will end up accepting both answers due to so much confusion, and dropping 2 marks is only like 3% anyway...

[connej]

I don't know. I'm still not convinced about the answer of proclamation. Are you guys sure its not royal assent...anyway it was only two marks..

i can see that it can be royal assent
it may come down to how you explained your reasoning
Well for some people 2 marks is a big deal, i know it is for me - legal will probably determine my ATAR and i need a very high A+

Same xD i did mention both stages and how they kind of are one. So i think i will get one mark for it maybe two I'm not sure. I mentioned royal assent and explained it and then mentioned how proclamation follows and what it is. So I'm right either way (jokes)