VCE Legal Studies Question Thread

[clarke54321]

Thanks a lot for the answer clarke54321!

So would it be acceptable to use:
 * R v. Brislan (1935) Wireless Telephone Case as an example for the High Court interpretation of the Constitution;
* Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1992) Case as an example of implied right; and
* Roach v. Electoral Commissioner (2007) as an example of structural protection?

Yes, definitely!

[meganrobyn]

Thanks a lot for the answer clarke54321!

So would it be acceptable to use:
 * R v. Brislan (1935) Wireless Telephone Case as an example for the High Court interpretation of the Constitution;
* Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1992) Case as an example of implied right; and
* Roach v. Electoral Commissioner (2007) as an example of structural protection?

Just to clarify re the 'High Court interpretation': they are all examples of High Court interpretation. Specifically, High Court interpretation of the Constitution. Brislan interpreted s51 and resulted in a change to the division of powers; ACTV interpreted ss7 and 24, and resulted in a change to implied rights; Roach interpreted ss7 and 24 (amongst other sections), and resulted in a change to structural protections. But they all involved an interpretation of the Constitution.

(Also, don't forget you need a second case relating to the division of powers.)

[patriciarose]

sorry if something like this has already been asked, but i really don't know how to tackle this ten mark question. 'the process under s128 have played a significant role in shifting the division of powers between parliaments in australia. in comparison, as a process, referral of powers has had no impact on the ways in which parliaments can create laws for the needs of a modern australia.' to what extent do you agree? explain in your answer the impact of one referendum on law-making powers in australia. more than anything else, i don't know how to coherently structure it because it seems to be asking for a lot. any ideas would be really appreciated? (:

[meganrobyn]

sorry if something like this has already been asked, but i really don't know how to tackle this ten mark question. 'the process under s128 have played a significant role in shifting the division of powers between parliaments in australia. in comparison, as a process, referral of powers has had no impact on the ways in which parliaments can create laws for the needs of a modern australia.' to what extent do you agree? explain in your answer the impact of one referendum on law-making powers in australia. more than anything else, i don't know how to coherently structure it because it seems to be asking for a lot. any ideas would be really appreciated? (:

Start by listing all the things you're going to need to cover. Then look at the list for connections and a logical order.

[pmmenotes]

Hey atarnotes just have a question about my grades

So this year I have not been doing as well as I have last year. My grades have been 78% (worse one), 85% and 86%. I go to a pretty good public score were always higher then the state averages and in like the top 20 melbourne public schools so i dont have a weak cohort. I think my ranking in my class would be at least top 10 and I know some people did really bad on the last SAC. Anyways my question is do you think its possible for me to get a 40+ study score for legal or would that be pushing it? provided I do good on the exam. I know im good at legal ive just been prioritising my other subjects like chem more because it was meant to be my "bludge".  Which I now know isnt the case

[clarke54321]

Hey atarnotes just have a question about my grades

So this year I have not been doing as well as I have last year. My grades have been 78% (worse one), 85% and 86%. I go to a pretty good public score were always higher then the state averages and in like the top 20 melbourne public schools so i dont have a weak cohort. I think my ranking in my class would be at least top 10 and I know some people did really bad on the last SAC. Anyways my question is do you think its possible for me to get a 40+ study score for legal or would that be pushing it? provided I do good on the exam. I know im good at legal ive just been prioritising my other subjects like chem more because it was meant to be my "bludge".  Which I now know isnt the case

Hey!

Of course 40+ is still a possible score! Given that your cohort is strong and you are around the top 10, your chances are still quite good. What I would recommend now is to go over your past SACs with your teacher and really understand why you lost marks. Try not to get hung up about marks, but rather what held you back from receiving your desired mark. Ultimately, it is all about the exam. So if you have a very strong knowledge come exam time, a 40+ is VERY achievable. Someone from my cohort last year lost quite a few marks in SACs throughout the year and wasn't ranked in the top 5 and received a 44. Anything is possible, provided that you put in effort and are willing to learn from your mistakes.

I hope this helps you out!

[kbanks]

sorry if something like this has already been asked, but i really don't know how to tackle this ten mark question. 'the process under s128 have played a significant role in shifting the division of powers between parliaments in australia. in comparison, as a process, referral of powers has had no impact on the ways in which parliaments can create laws for the needs of a modern australia.' to what extent do you agree? explain in your answer the impact of one referendum on law-making powers in australia. more than anything else, i don't know how to coherently structure it because it seems to be asking for a lot. any ideas would be really appreciated? (:

Hey
So when you're structuring an answer to a question like this it is really important to get a good plan down on paper before you try and answer it! So really good that you're able to pick up when you're not really coherent in your answer, that's a really important skill.
For this particular question, it's asking you to focus on two things: referendums, and referral of law making power. It's then asking you to evaluate both of them in terms of how effectively they can alter the division of law making power, ensuring you use an example of a referendum.
Breaking the question down into chunks is a really easy way to determine exactly what it is asking you to do, and make sure that you're covering everything necessary.
What I would do is this:
- Explanation of the referendum process
- Example of one successful referendum and the way in which it shifted the division of law-making power
- Discussion of the method by which states can refer their law making power to the Commonwealth
- Discussion of the impact this has on the division of law making power
- Comparison of the two (for example: which one is more effective? which one has had the most impact from the examples you have learnt?)

When you're comparing them, you could bring in some strengths and weaknesses of both referendums and referrals, depending on which way you are arguing (for example, if you're saying that referral of law making powers has a bigger impact than referendums, you could talk about how referendums very rarely succeed because of the double majority provision).

Hope this helps!! Let me know if you need any more advice
Good luck,
Karly

[Notarobot]

Hi everyone,

Re: the role of the courts in law-making.

I have a SAC tomorrow and the teacher has given us a list of topics to revise. One of the topics is confusing as I have found several possible (and different) answers in the textbook (Making and Breaking the Law), Checkpoints and A+ Notes, none of which mention something that the teacher said in class.
The topic is: "methods used by courts to interpret statues", which I think refers to: "how judges interpret legislation" (statutory interpretation) in the textbook (Making and Breaking the Law).

Having looked at various books and notes, here is my sample answer for a question about "methods used by courts to interpret statues", does anyone have any feedback?

Courts (Judges and Magistrates) will try to determine the purpose or intent of the legislation and interpret the Act in that light. The first step is to interpret according to the plain (literal) meaning of the words. Then if there is ambiguity or absurdity, consult aids or sources.
The kinds of sources used by Judges to assist them in determining the meaning of Acts are: 1) intrinsic (sources contained within the Act); 2) extrinsic (sources outside the Act eg dictionaries, legislative guidelines, previous decisions).
Judges may also refer to 'Judge's common law rules' which help analysing the grammatical structure of sentences: such as a) ejusdem generis, 'specific terms followed by a general term'; this rule limits the general term to same class as the specific term.

Thanks.

[kbanks]

Hi everyone,

Re: the role of the courts in law-making.

I have a SAC tomorrow and the teacher has given us a list of topics to revise. One of the topics is confusing as I have found several possible (and different) answers in the textbook (Making and Breaking the Law), Checkpoints and A+ Notes, none of which mention something that the teacher said in class.
The topic is: "methods used by courts to interpret statues", which I think refers to: "how judges interpret legislation" (statutory interpretation) in the textbook (Making and Breaking the Law).

Having looked at various books and notes, here is my sample answer for a question about "methods used by courts to interpret statues", does anyone have any feedback?

Courts (Judges and Magistrates) will try to determine the purpose or intent of the legislation and interpret the Act in that light. The first step is to interpret according to the plain (literal) meaning of the words. Then if there is ambiguity or absurdity, consult aids or sources.
The kinds of sources used by Judges to assist them in determining the meaning of Acts are: 1) intrinsic (sources contained within the Act); 2) extrinsic (sources outside the Act eg dictionaries, legislative guidelines, previous decisions).
Judges may also refer to 'Judge's common law rules' which help analysing the grammatical structure of sentences: such as a) ejusdem generis, 'specific terms followed by a general term'; this rule limits the general term to same class as the specific term.

Thanks.

Hey
You're correct in saying that 'methods used by courts to interpret statutes' is referring to the role of statutory interpretation - and your answer seems pretty spot on to me!
The only thing that I would add in the beginning is a super quick explanation of WHY courts may need to interpret statutes...
E.g
"Courts will need to interpret the meaning of statutes if a case comes before them that includes the need to read legislation. As legislation is often drafted in a confusing manner, or using words that are ambiguous in their meaning, courts will need to add meaning to the words in order to be able to come to a conclusion about the case before them".

Good luck!
Karly.

[meganrobyn]

Hi everyone,

Re: the role of the courts in law-making.

I have a SAC tomorrow and the teacher has given us a list of topics to revise. One of the topics is confusing as I have found several possible (and different) answers in the textbook (Making and Breaking the Law), Checkpoints and A+ Notes, none of which mention something that the teacher said in class.
The topic is: "methods used by courts to interpret statues", which I think refers to: "how judges interpret legislation" (statutory interpretation) in the textbook (Making and Breaking the Law).

Having looked at various books and notes, here is my sample answer for a question about "methods used by courts to interpret statues", does anyone have any feedback?

Courts (Judges and Magistrates) will try to determine the purpose or intent of the legislation and interpret the Act in that light. The first step is to interpret according to the plain (literal) meaning of the words. Then if there is ambiguity or absurdity, consult aids or sources.
The kinds of sources used by Judges to assist them in determining the meaning of Acts are: 1) intrinsic (sources contained within the Act); 2) extrinsic (sources outside the Act eg dictionaries, legislative guidelines, previous decisions).
Judges may also refer to 'Judge's common law rules' which help analysing the grammatical structure of sentences: such as a) ejusdem generis, 'specific terms followed by a general term'; this rule limits the general term to same class as the specific term.

Thanks.

You can't really judge the quality of an answer without knowing the wording of the question, including task word, and the mark allocation. So just make sure you include those. If this question was, say, "Explain the methods used by judges in the interpretation of statutes." (4 marks), then I'd say that was a really good answer. That's also hard to judge, though, because that topic isn't on the SD! It's not required knowledge. So there shouldn't be a SAC question on it at all, and it definitely won't be on the exam.

Also, just make sure not to include anything that isn't expressly asked for in the question, because no marks are allocated for it. So, yeah, just the methods will get marks for the wording above. Maybe some brownie points for demonstrating knowledge of what SI is in the first place, but that usually comes through the rest of the answer.

[Notarobot]

Thanks a lot Karly and Megan for your great help. I did really well on the SAC. There WAS a question about the methods used by judges in statutory interpretation on the SAC. I agree it is not on the study design. Before the SAC I matched my teacher's revision list to the study design and that topic was the only one that didn't map to the design. A+ also said it wasn't required knowledge. I guess it happens but as you said it can't happen on the end of year exam.

[abbeyrose]

I was wondering if I could get some help for this legal question:

Outline all the requirements for a precedent to be binding. (2 marks)

Thank you 

[Glasses]

I was wondering if I could get some help for this legal question:

Outline all the requirements for a precedent to be binding. (2 marks)

Thank you 

I'm going to start off by saying that I'm not a big fan of this question - considering it says "all"; I would like to think an exam question wouldn't be so absolute or definitive - but nonetheless, I'd say the requirements (although I may not get all of them) are:
- The precedent is set by a superior court in the same court hierarchy. E.g. The High Court on the lower courts.
- The material facts of the case before the court are similar (as determined by the judge) to those which were present before the superior court (which set the precedent).

The above are the main points - but for arguments sake, you could also note that to be binding, there mustn't be another (binding) precedent that would be more appropriate for the case [although this ties in with the material facts point]; and you could also note that there isn't a piece of legislation that contradicts the precedent - because that would make it not binding (in accordance with the supremacy of Parliament).

Hope that helps!

[abbeyrose]

I'm going to start off by saying that I'm not a big fan of this question - considering it says "all"; I would like to think an exam question wouldn't be so absolute or definitive - but nonetheless, I'd say the requirements (although I may not get all of them) are:
- The precedent is set by a superior court in the same court hierarchy. E.g. The High Court on the lower courts.
- The material facts of the case before the court are similar (as determined by the judge) to those which were present before the superior court (which set the precedent).

The above are the main points - but for arguments sake, you could also note that to be binding, there mustn't be another (binding) precedent that would be more appropriate for the case [although this ties in with the material facts point]; and you could also note that there isn't a piece of legislation that contradicts the precedent - because that would make it not binding (in accordance with the supremacy of Parliament).

Hope that helps!

This helps tremendously. Thank you!

[Elizabeth Arnott]

Does anyone know how to answer this;
Explain two advantages of having a ‘super tribunal’ such as VCAT, compared with having many different tribunals.