*Didn't score that well in Legal studies and it's been a while but I feel like I can answer these, someone, please correct me if I'm wrong and subsequently fucking up some kid's education*-Do we need to know all the examples under structural protection (representative and responsible govt. separation of powers), express (all 5) and implied rights (freedom of political communication along with all the little acts and stuff within the explanation)? And in how much detail?
I would definitely know all three structural protections. I still know all five express rights, so I'd recommend learning them all because I must have for some reason, right? I don't see them asking you to regurgitate all five of them on the exam though. I don't think you have to go too crazy on the freedom of political communication cases - I knew a moderate amount about Theophanus V. Herald Weekly Times.
- Do we need to know about the enforcement of rights (watchdog and complaints-based)?
I have no idea what this question is.
- How many strengths and weaknesses of the constitutional protection of rights do we need to know? Will we ever get asked and extended response type question on these particular strengths and weaknesses (what's the most marks we'll be asked for on this particular thing?)
No one can really answer this except for the script writers... My approach was to treat everything as if it were going to be a ten mark question (a lot of stuff was on my SACs) so the way I broke down my marks that'd be five strengths and five weaknesses for everything. Although, I see it as unlikely they'd be as specific as to say "Evaluate constitutional protection"... From my perspective it'd more likely be a comparison question, or perhaps a smaller evaluation. I'd personally learn five (I was a paranoid learner with Legal), but if you were more relaxed you could probably get away with not learning so many.
-When answering evaluate questions (like q1 from 4.7 in justice and outcomes) do we always have to link a strength with a weakness or can we just have a few strengths in a para and then a few weaknesses in a para and an evaluative statement at the end? Because there's some good strengths/weaknesses that don't really have a corresponding strength/weakness. Does it always have to be a strength countered by a
Nope, juxtaposition is no longer a requirement for evaluate questions (I think it may have been prior to 2011). The way you've suggested I think would be an acceptable structure for full marks, however, I'd recommend juxtaposing as best you can. I think it shows a good understanding, makes it easier for you to remember personally, and is just simpler to write in an exam and demonstrate your merit for each mark. But yeah, to answer your question, it doesn't always have to be juxtaposed. I'm rusty, but I don't think you'd be awarded a mark for an evaluative statement (unless they asked your opinion), so if you were going to do one, I'd still quantify strengths and weaknesses based on the available marks (Eight marks - four str/four wkns)
- With Roach, did she question the validity of the 2006 amendment or the 2004 act or both?
She challenged both, however it was ruled that 2006 was invalid and 2004 was valid, so the 2004 act stood but Howard's amendments got thrown out.