werdna's LS question and answer thread.

[flash36]

Hey werdna, PM me the essay when you're finished and I'd be happy to have a look at it for you if you'd like.

[werdna]

Can someone please go over my answers and see where I can improve? Thanks!

1. Distinguish between a summary offence and an indictable offence.
A summary offence is a minor criminal offence that is heard in the Magistrates' Court. Examples of summary offences include careless driving, offensive behaviour and property damage. An indictable offence, on the other hand, is a more serious criminal offence for which the accused is entitled to a trial before a judge and jury in a higher court. Examples of indictable offences include perjury, attempted murder and burglary.

For this question I wasn't sure if I needed to mention that some indictable offences can be tried summarily, decided against doing this as the question asked to 'distinguish' and make the distinction between the two. But if I should have mentioned it, let me know!

2. Describe the appellate jurisdiction of the County Court.
Under the County Court's appellate jurisdiction for criminal cases, appeals can be made on the grounds of conviction and/or the severity or leniency of a sentence handed down by the Magistrates' Court. After conducting a full rehearing, the County Court can decide to let the magistrate's decision stand and dismiss the appeal, quash the conviction or amend (increase or decrease) the sentence. It has no appellate jurisdiction for civil cases, except under a specific act of law under which it is allowed to hear appeals of civil matters.

[flash36]

Spot on.

[werdna]

Really?! Thanks flasha! Finally some good after doing legal for 3 days straight.. this is draining stuff haha

[flash36]

Legals kills you. It's so dry and uninspiring.

[werdna]

A couple of questions:

1. If arbitration is generally seen as a last resort, why are civil claims under $10,000 referred to compulsory arbitration? Why couldn't these civil disputes be referred to different ADRs?

2. What exactly is judicial determination? By what I can understand, it's just fancy legal terminology masking what we already know? Ie. the ordinary court process?

3. Is it crucial to know ALL the uses of the dispute resolution methods? Eg. Arbitration List in the Commercial Court of Supreme Court etc.

Thanks for any help guys!

[eeps]

2. Yes, what you've said is right. Judicial determination and the process of going to court are essentially the same thing. It's a term which has been coined in the new study design this year for no real reason in my opinion.

3. No, you don't need to know all the uses of dispute resolution methods. Knowing what arbitration, conciliation and mediation are (their definitions) and their strengths and weaknesses are enough.

I'm not sure about the first question.

[werdna]

2. Yes, what you've said is right. Judicial determination and the process of going to court are essentially the same thing. It's a term which has been coined in the new study design this year for no real reason in my opinion.

3. No, you don't need to know all the uses of dispute resolution methods. Knowing what arbitration, conciliation and mediation are (their definitions) and their strengths and weaknesses are enough.

I'm not sure about the first question.

Thanks for the help man. Two more questions - not sure how to answer these ones:

1. Distinguish between judicial determination and alternative methods of dispute resolution.

2. Evaluate the way in which courts operate to resolve disputes. - not exactly sure on how to structure this answer, do I write a statement on how effective it is overall at the end?

[andy456]

2. Yes, what you've said is right. Judicial determination and the process of going to court are essentially the same thing. It's a term which has been coined in the new study design this year for no real reason in my opinion.

3. No, you don't need to know all the uses of dispute resolution methods. Knowing what arbitration, conciliation and mediation are (their definitions) and their strengths and weaknesses are enough.

I'm not sure about the first question.

Thanks for the help man. Two more questions - not sure how to answer these ones:

1. Distinguish between judicial determination and alternative methods of dispute resolution.

2. Evaluate the way in which courts operate to resolve disputes. - not exactly sure on how to structure this answer, do I write a statement on how effective it is overall at the end?

For the second question I would talk about pre-trial procedures (have you studied that yet??). I think thats what they mean by 'operates'. Yes for any evaluate question I would write a paragraph/conclusion on effectiveness.

[werdna]

For the 2nd question it's on the strengths and weaknesses of courts in dispute resolution - I'm just not sure how I should structure the answer. How many paragraphs should I write for an 'evaluate' question, and how is this different to a 'critically evaluate'? (question wasn't allocated number of marks)

Also for the 1st question have you got a rough idea of what the differences between the two are? It's a bit hard to find different characteristics when judicial determination isn't an ADR. :/

[Liuy]

essentially judicial determination is just the process of resolving a case in court, so it's basically asking you to compare the operation of courts with alternative dispute resolution methods. Some differences include cost, time consumption etc.

for the Strengths and weaknesses question, I would discuss 3 strengths and 3 weaknesses, writing a conclusion about the overall effectiveness in the end. I do not think there is an explicit difference between critically evaluate and simple evaluate.