VCE Legal Studies Question Thread

[MJRomeo81]

 The question says two possible reforms, so by that logic and marking scheme I'd do exactly as you said. As long as you discuss the weaknesses in great depth you should be fine.

It is a tricky question so take your time with it.

[billius1]

make sure your reform matches up with the weakness. i know it sounds silly, but most people just chose any weakness and any reform. it needs to be a reform for that weakness.

[eeps]

Question. It relates to the Insight 2009 exam.

'Explain the role of the jury in a criminal trial and assess the extent to which juries help contribute to the effective operation of the legal system, by making reference to two of the elements of an effective legal system.' (8 marks)

The bit in bold is confusing me quite a bit. I know one point/argument that I can link to 'fair and unbiased hearing' (that is, they provide for a cross-section of the community etc.), but I can't seem to find another element to link to (with a strong argument for). If I've interpreted the question correctly, it's asking for what two elements can be linked to juries in which they contribute to an effective legal system. I'm finding this question to be quite ambiguous; hence any help would be greatly appreciated.

[billius1]

Question. It relates to the Insight 2009 exam.

'Explain the role of the jury in a criminal trial and assess the extent to which juries help contribute to the effective operation of the legal system, by making reference to two of the elements of an effective legal system.' (8 marks)

The bit in bold is confusing me quite a bit. I know one point/argument that I can link to 'fair and unbiased hearing' (that is, they provide for a cross-section of the community etc.), but I can't seem to find another element to link to (with a strong argument for). If I've interpreted the question correctly, it's asking for what two elements can be linked to juries in which they contribute to an effective legal system. I'm finding this question to be quite ambiguous; hence any help would be greatly appreciated.

this is a good question, and very likely as it covers multiple areas of the of the course and gives people the opportunity to boast knowledge. now this question is from the previous study design, where you were taught 4 elements of an efffective legal system (the 4th being the reflection of prevailing social values and basic human rights). this 4th element was taken out because there were only a few things that related to it, the main thing being the jury system. so now that it doesnt exist according to the study design, you can't use that one, which is what the question would have been looking for (along with fair and unbiased hearing).
in actual fact, the jury system generally hinders the other elements for various reasons. For example, the fact that evidence must be explained comprehensively to jurors in the simplest manner means that the timely resolution of disputes is impeded.
However, you could talk about how the jury provides effective mechanisms of access through this, because evidence (and the trial as a whole for that matter) is conducted in a people-friendly, comprehensible, intelligible way, which allows the average individual to access the law as one with no legal background can readily understand what is happening. With no jury, there would likely be excessive amounts of complex evidence, legal jargon, and confusing arguments presented.

another point for fair and unbiased hearing is that the the prejudice of a single juror is counterbalanced by the remainder of the jury panel. thus, the ideas spawned from without the trial are not given the opportunity to blossom or influence the legal fate of the defendant. in effect, this ensure a fair and unbiased hearing.

also, you could talk about, like you said, the fact that one's getting tried by their peers - people with the same legal standing - safeguards fairness in that the biases that may be associated with legal professionals are absent in the jury panel. This is ensured by the various exemptions that prevent certain people from being placed on a jury (if you need to fill space, you can explain this in a little more detail...but not too much )

hope this helps

[StephenBM]

Need some help with the following, wasn't in any of my text books.

Strengths and weaknesses of the VLRC in assessing the need for a change in the law?

Thanks!

[Cappuccinos]

Need some help with the following, wasn't in any of my text books.

Strengths and weaknesses of the VLRC in assessing the need for a change in the law?

Thanks!

Are you using Key Concepts in Legal Studies? Hahah

Anyway here's a page from Justice and Outcomes (see attached)

[StephenBM]

Hahaha

Thanks for mocking...and the help!!

[playsimme]

Hi
Doctrine of precedent is confusing me.. does disapproving only exist for lower courts or can higher courts disapprove a lower court? Because what's the point of a higher court disapproving when they could just overrule? Also can disapproving set a precedent? (In A+ notes or somewhere I read that it could, but in some places it says it's only ever binding or obiter dictum)
Thanks

[eeps]

Hi
Doctrine of precedent is confusing me.. does disapproving only exist for lower courts or can higher courts disapprove a lower court? Because what's the point of a higher court disapproving when they could just overrule? Also can disapproving set a precedent? (In A+ notes or somewhere I read that it could, but in some places it says it's only ever binding or obiter dictum)
Thanks

Disapproving only exists for lower courts. For example, the Magistrates' Court can disapprove a precedent set in the Victorian Supreme Court - but are still bound to follow it. Disapproving does not create a new precedent. However, the disapproving comments which are made in the obiter dictum, can result in the change in the law (i.e. Trigwell case).

[billius1]

Hi
Doctrine of precedent is confusing me.. does disapproving only exist for lower courts or can higher courts disapprove a lower court? Because what's the point of a higher court disapproving when they could just overrule? Also can disapproving set a precedent? (In A+ notes or somewhere I read that it could, but in some places it says it's only ever binding or obiter dictum)
Thanks

this is a bit of an ambiguous area as different resources (as you've found) say different things. i remember having the same problem. after talking to many people in the legal profession, i concluded that any court can disapprove (from Magistrate's Court, to the High Court) Generally it is only inferior courts that disapprove precedents which they are bound to, however the High Court can disprove legislation, which Parliament can then take into account.
also, it's not 'the obiter dictum' it's either "comments made in passing obiter" or "comments made in obiter dictum" (just to show examiners you know what the word means, not just the legal use of it for that extra bit of easiness when they mark you exam)

[playsimme]

Thanks for the clarification - also guys I really need clarification on this too
One of my strengths for VCAT is the existence of a binding decision
However i'm aware VCAT facilitates a variety of ADR, of which some is not binding such as mediation. But in the a+ notes it says 'decisions made by vcat members' is a form of Judicial determination.. but isn't judicial determination binding which means mediation wouldn't be binding if done by a vcat member?
So are all VCAT's decisions binding or only arbitration in vcat?

[nacho]

Thanks for the clarification - also guys I really need clarification on this too
One of my strengths for VCAT is the existence of a binding decision
However i'm aware VCAT facilitates a variety of ADR, of which some is not binding such as mediation. But in the a+ notes it says 'decisions made by vcat members' is a form of Judicial determination.. but isn't judicial determination binding which means mediation wouldn't be binding if done by a vcat member?
So are all VCAT's decisions binding or only arbitration in vcat?

it's only arbitration which is binding.

[billius1]

Thanks for the clarification - also guys I really need clarification on this too
One of my strengths for VCAT is the existence of a binding decision
However i'm aware VCAT facilitates a variety of ADR, of which some is not binding such as mediation. But in the a+ notes it says 'decisions made by vcat members' is a form of Judicial determination.. but isn't judicial determination binding which means mediation wouldn't be binding if done by a vcat member?
So are all VCAT's decisions binding or only arbitration in vcat?

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.

[playsimme]

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?

[eeps]

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?

Yes. The example you've given is acceptable. A strength of VCAT is that it provides for an informal atmosphere as the strict rules of evidence and procedure are loosened etc.; however a corresponding weakness is that one party may dominate the other party - leading to an unjust outcome, because the other party may compromise too much. Make sure you explain it in sufficient detail to get the marks. When discussing strengths/weaknesses of VCAT you can refer to mediation/conciliation/arbitration.