Login | Register

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

July 04, 2020, 05:20:51 am

Author Topic: 'Mark my Response' Thread  (Read 7205 times)  Share 

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

eeps

  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Superstar
  • ******
  • Posts: 2533
  • Respect: +342
'Mark my Response' Thread
« on: September 02, 2011, 10:36:14 pm »
+1
Alternatively we can, later on in the year, make a 'Mark my Response' thread like we did in BM for the 10 marker. You post your response to a question, everyone marks it and gives criticism.

Seeing as the exam is approaching, I thought what burbs suggested earlier in the year was a good idea. Essentially, just post up any 10-mark question and your response to it. Then, other people will give feedback on what you've written. Note importantly, due to the changes in the study design this year:

Quote
There will be one extended response question worth 10 marks at the end of the examination. There will be no choice of topics for students. This question will be drawn from Unit 3 or 4, or both.

That was from the VCAA website.

This is a "win-win" situation for everyone, as others can see how to answer a particular question (i.e. structure/content etc.) - while the person posting their response is able to refine their answer and make it better. Hopefully, come the actual exam, we may have covered all the potential 10-mark questions VCAA may ask.

Best of luck to everyone and happy revising!

eeps

  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Superstar
  • ******
  • Posts: 2533
  • Respect: +342
Re: 'Mark my Response' Thread
« Reply #1 on: September 29, 2011, 10:46:17 pm »
0
Seeing as I didn't want to lose this thread; I thought I'd start off. This 10-mark question was from the VCAA 2011 sample questions on their website. Any feedback/comments would be appreciated as I don't believe VCAA published solutions for these questions.



The Commonwealth Constitution offers Australians protection for only a limited number of rights, but these rights are protected effectively by various means within the Commonwealth Constitution. Discuss the extent to which you agree with this statement. In your answer describe three means by which the Commonwealth Constitution protects rights. (10 marks)

I fully agree with the above statement as the Commonwealth’s Constitution only protects a limited number of civil and political rights in comparison to other countries such as Canada. However, the rights which it protects are done so very well as it’s often difficult to change or remove our rights.

Our rights in the Commonwealth Constitution are indeed limited as it only protects 5 express rights and 1 implied right - whereas Canada’s Constitution protects a far greater number of rights such as democratic, mobility and legal rights. One means by which our rights are protected is through Section 128 of the Commonwealth Constitution, as our rights are entrenched in the Constitution. Both express rights and implied rights are entrenched in the Constitution, meaning that it is often very difficult to change and can only be done so through what is known as a ‘referendum’ process under Section 128 of the Constitution - whereby the proposed change must be agreed upon by both houses of the Commonwealth Parliament (House of Representatives and the Senate), and the majority of states (i.e. 4 out of 6 states) and majority of voters (50% +1) must agree to the change. This process is very difficult to achieve and has had a low success rate in recent years with only 8 out of 44 being successful. This is one means by which our rights are protection through the Commonwealth Constitution. Furthermore, if laws passed by Parliament infringe on our rights such as the right to trial by jury in Commonwealth indictable offences, then they will be declared invalid by our courts (ultra vires).

Another means by which our rights are protected is through structural protections. An example of a structural protection is the separation of powers. The legislative function is the power to make laws and that is given to Parliament, the executive function is the power to administer laws and that is practiced in theory by government and the judicial function is the power to apply laws when disputes arise – that is given to the courts and other dispute-settling bodies. The separation of powers ensures that no one body has absolute power and hence, prevents any abuse of power among the three arms of the legal system. This allows for the effective protection of our rights in the Constitution.

A third means by which our rights are protected is through the bi-cameral structure of the Commonwealth Parliament. The House of Representatives and Senate acts as checks and balances to each other, ensuring that any proposed bill or change is responsible to the Parliament and particularly, the people, who voted them in. Both houses ensure that any bill passed is also representative of the people’s and States’ interests. The Senate, in particular, acts as a ‘House of review’ to the House of Representatives to ensure that any bill passed is acceptable. In this way, the bi-cameral structure of Parliament protects our rights which are entrenched in the Commonwealth Constitution.

Though the number of rights protected in our Constitution is limited, through such methods as Section 128 of the Constitution and structural protections such as the separation of powers and the bi-cameral structure of Parliament this ensures that our rights are protected effectively.

kamb0z

  • Victorian
  • Forum Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 98
  • Harro.
  • Respect: +3
  • School: Dandy High
Re: 'Mark my Response' Thread
« Reply #2 on: September 30, 2011, 01:24:35 am »
0
“The jury system is a thing of the past and must be abolished”. Identify and evaluate two reforms or alternatives to the jury system.

The jury system has been an integral part of the legal system for a reasonably prolonged period of time, in the time that it has been utilised; it has achieved relative success in resolving trials. To say that it is a ‘thing of the past’ and needs to be abolished completely is a gross overstatement, and untrue. Whilst the jury system may appear to have several flaws when it comes to resolving disputes and cases, the fact that it is able to achieve an appropriate resolution is a positive; however, several reformulations can take place which may improve the way in which the jury system operates.

Firstly, juries could be required to give reasons for their decisions, as opposed to finding a straight answer with no explanation given for their judgement. This therefore makes the jury more accountable as the accused in a criminal trial, and the parties involved in a civil trial are notified of the reasons given and why the jury acted in such a way to find their verdict. Consequently, this enables the parties involved to acknowledge whether attention was given to the actual points of law and facts of the case as opposed to just basing decisions on moral opinions, which therefore leads to greater confidence (or not if it was not based on the facts) in the system. However, this can also be seen in a way that portrays this reform as a negative. If jurors are not required to give reasons, then they are able to take into account wider considerations than the law, and matters of evidence which may lead to a more ‘just’ decision being developed on behalf of the community. Furthermore, it may also lead to jurors feeling a relatively significant burden to summarise the thoughts of 11(criminal) other jurors who may have arrived at the same decision for differing reasons. Giving reasons also gives leeway to appeals being made in respect to the deliberation given by the jury, as they may not have based their judgement on the facts, and rather did so on the basis of external influences which were not present in the case.

Reducing the number of challenges and individuals who are excused from jury duty may also be an effective way in which to increase participation rates. Within criminal trials, parties are given the right to challenge a maximum of 6 jurors without giving an appropriate reason. Peremptory challenges therefore have the potential to reduce the cross-sectional aspect of the jury system and give parties the opportunity to advantage their own case by removing jurors which may compromise it. As a result of exemptions, sections of society are not represented appropriately, and thus do not reflect a true cross-section of the community. An example is that individuals who are involved in the legal profession are deemed to be exempt. If individuals who were experienced in the law were able to sit on juries, the facts of the case would be paid closer attention to, and therefore a more correct resolution is likely to be achieved. However, when individuals are forced to do something, they are most likely not going to be willing to give their best effort to the task at hand, this can be closely correlated to the situation which is likely to take place if individuals are forced to participate in juries. The major negative aspect associated with increasing the participation in juries is that those in the legal profession may influence others that are making a decision, and that individuals with the genuine need to be excused are unable to do so.

In conclusion, the jury system can be perceived as an extremely beneficial aspect of our legal system, it encapsulates the need for society’s values to be reflected within the law and how it is actively imposed within the community. The jury system is not a thing of the past, and definitely does not need to be abolished, but merely needs to adjust to the difficulties that may come about from its usage. Instead of removing an integral part of the legal system, the jury system needs to be strengthened.
2010: Business Management [47]

2011: Legal studies [47]  | Economics [46] | Accounting [48] | English [44] | Methods [44]

Atar: 99.40

eeps

  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Superstar
  • ******
  • Posts: 2533
  • Respect: +342
Re: 'Mark my Response' Thread
« Reply #3 on: September 30, 2011, 05:07:03 pm »
0
kamb0z, I think your response and the question itself is really good. You've explored both the good and negative sides of your two reforms. Structure-wise, it's pretty good as well. I would give that 9/10, if not, full marks. The only real comment/feedback I have is this part:

Quote
However, when individuals are forced to do something, they are most likely not going to be willing to give their best effort to the task at hand, this can be closely correlated to the situation which is likely to take place if individuals are forced to participate in juries.

In my opinion, you don't really need that bit (partly because I don't see how it fits into your point?). Otherwise, very good.

kamb0z

  • Victorian
  • Forum Regular
  • **
  • Posts: 98
  • Harro.
  • Respect: +3
  • School: Dandy High
Re: 'Mark my Response' Thread
« Reply #4 on: September 30, 2011, 07:38:40 pm »
0

Quote
However, when individuals are forced to do something, they are most likely not going to be willing to give their best effort to the task at hand, this can be closely correlated to the situation which is likely to take place if individuals are forced to participate in juries.

In my opinion, you don't really need that bit (partly because I don't see how it fits into your point?). Otherwise, very good.

I was going along the lines of that if jurors aren't going to give their best effort, it is unlikely that the individuals on trial are going to achieve a fair and unbiased trial through carefully examined deliberation and examination of the facts (effective legal system), which supports the 'negative' factor of a jury system.

As for yours, I'd probably give yours a 9-10 as well. I like how you went in and stated your contention straight away. Personally I don't like writing in first person for legal, but yeah, that's only me. You elaborate on all your arguments sufficiently, and it answers the general question effectively.
Quote
Our rights in the Commonwealth Constitution are indeed limited as it only protects 5 express rights and 1 implied right - whereas Canada’s Constitution protects a far greater number of rights such as democratic, mobility and legal rights.

I think that would be better suited in the introductory line/paragraph because the 'whereas Canada' line doesn't really flow on to your first point.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2011, 07:41:13 pm by kamb0z »
2010: Business Management [47]

2011: Legal studies [47]  | Economics [46] | Accounting [48] | English [44] | Methods [44]

Atar: 99.40

mskux19

  • Victorian
  • Trailblazer
  • *
  • Posts: 26
  • Respect: 0
Re: 'Mark my Response' Thread
« Reply #5 on: September 30, 2011, 10:29:52 pm »
0
Seeing as I didn't want to lose this thread; I thought I'd start off. This 10-mark question was from the VCAA 2011 sample questions on their website. Any feedback/comments would be appreciated as I don't believe VCAA published solutions for these questions.



The Commonwealth Constitution offers Australians protection for only a limited number of rights, but these rights are protected effectively by various means within the Commonwealth Constitution. Discuss the extent to which you agree with this statement. In your answer describe three means by which the Commonwealth Constitution protects rights. (10 marks)

I fully agree with the above statement as the Commonwealth’s Constitution only protects a limited number of civil and political rights in comparison to other countries such as Canada. However, the rights which it protects are done so very well as it’s often difficult to change or remove our rights.

Our rights in the Commonwealth Constitution are indeed limited as it only protects 5 express rights and 1 implied right - whereas Canada’s Constitution protects a far greater number of rights such as democratic, mobility and legal rights. One means by which our rights are protected is through Section 128 of the Commonwealth Constitution, as our rights are entrenched in the Constitution. Both express rights and implied rights are entrenched in the Constitution, meaning that it is often very difficult to change and can only be done so through what is known as a ‘referendum’ process under Section 128 of the Constitution - whereby the proposed change must be agreed upon by both houses of the Commonwealth Parliament (House of Representatives and the Senate), and the majority of states (i.e. 4 out of 6 states) and majority of voters (50% +1) must agree to the change. This process is very difficult to achieve and has had a low success rate in recent years with only 8 out of 44 being successful. This is one means by which our rights are protection through the Commonwealth Constitution. Furthermore, if laws passed by Parliament infringe on our rights such as the right to trial by jury in Commonwealth indictable offences, then they will be declared invalid by our courts (ultra vires).

Another means by which our rights are protected is through structural protections. An example of a structural protection is the separation of powers. The legislative function is the power to make laws and that is given to Parliament, the executive function is the power to administer laws and that is practiced in theory by government and the judicial function is the power to apply laws when disputes arise – that is given to the courts and other dispute-settling bodies. The separation of powers ensures that no one body has absolute power and hence, prevents any abuse of power among the three arms of the legal system. This allows for the effective protection of our rights in the Constitution.

A third means by which our rights are protected is through the bi-cameral structure of the Commonwealth Parliament. The House of Representatives and Senate acts as checks and balances to each other, ensuring that any proposed bill or change is responsible to the Parliament and particularly, the people, who voted them in. Both houses ensure that any bill passed is also representative of the people’s and States’ interests. The Senate, in particular, acts as a ‘House of review’ to the House of Representatives to ensure that any bill passed is acceptable. In this way, the bi-cameral structure of Parliament protects our rights which are entrenched in the Commonwealth Constitution.

Though the number of rights protected in our Constitution is limited, through such methods as Section 128 of the Constitution and structural protections such as the separation of powers and the bi-cameral structure of Parliament this ensures that our rights are protected effectively.

I think that is a solid answer.
Personally, I would define each method, i.e. structural protection, implied right and express rights before continuing on and explaining how they protect our rights.
And the last paragraph, although correct, is another example of a structural protection.
I would talk about the implied right there and mention that the High Court can interpret the Constitution (via cases bought in front of them such as the cases like Lange v. ABC in the 'freedom of political communication' to discover implied rights. I know you've already mentioned implied rights earlier but I recommend you show a clear distinction between express, implied and structural protection and talk about each briefly.
RAW
2010 : Specialist [43]
2011: Literature [44], Legal Studies [50], Chemistry[42], Physics[45], Economics [50]
ATAR: 99.85

2012: Bachelor of Laws/Commerce @ ANU







---------------------------------------------

VCAA Examinations 2011 - "Be safe get 100%"

eeps

  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Superstar
  • ******
  • Posts: 2533
  • Respect: +342
Re: 'Mark my Response' Thread
« Reply #6 on: October 03, 2011, 07:16:52 pm »
0
Cheers for the feedback guys. Any feedback/comments for the question below would be appreciated as well.



‘Parliament is more effective than courts when it comes to making laws. Therefore, law-making should be left to Parliament only and courts should focus on resolving disputes, not making laws.’ Discuss the statement above, indicating the extent to which you agree or disagree. In your answer include a critical evaluation of the law-making processes of Parliament and courts. (10 marks)

I partially agree with the above statement, as Parliament is more effective in law-making than courts - however courts can and should be able to make laws as well. Courts are generally quicker in passing laws and can interpret the law when deemed necessary. Parliament is more effective in that it is a democratically-elected body and can make laws when the need arises.

One strength of Parliament as the supreme law-making body is that it can make laws when the need arises - if there is a concern in the community, it can make laws to meet these needs. Parliament can make laws in areas where it sees fit such as healthcare and the environment. In contrast, the courts cannot make laws in certain areas. It is limited to the cases that are brought before them. It can only investigate that particular area of law in regards to a case. If a case does not come before the courts, then it cannot make any changes to the law. This is seen as major weakness of the courts as law-makers as it limits their ability to make law.

A strength of the courts is that they can make laws quickly in comparison to Parliament. Once a case comes to court, they can reach a decision quickly and efficiently through court processes and this may become precedent and eventually, common law. This is seen as a strength of the courts as law-makers, on the proviso that a case comes before them. In contrast, the law-making process through Parliament can be lengthy and time-consuming as there are number of stages a bill must go through such as the second reading and the ‘Consideration in detail’, before it becomes law. Also, the fact that Parliament doesn’t sit everyday of the year means that it may take many months for a law to be passed by Parliament. It only sits during certain periods of the year.

A second strength of the Parliament is that it’s a democratically-elected body; hence it should represent the majority of community’s views when passing laws. Otherwise, if Parliament does not represent the majority of the community’s views, then the government may be voted out at the next election. However, the courts are not a democratically-elected body - they are created through legislation by the Parliament such as The Supreme Court Act which created the Victorian Supreme Court. Thus, laws which the courts set may not always be in the interests of society, and individuals may not agree with it. This is seen as another weakness of the courts as law-makers, as they may be unpopular with the community.

Another strength of the courts is that judges are appointed, not elected. This means that they are able to reach fair and rational decisions when determining the outcome of a case. They can make decisions without the fear of public or political backlash and pressure. This is seen as a strength of the courts as law-makers. On the hand, Parliament being a democratically-elected body, may be reluctant to pass laws relating to sensitive issues as they fear this will cause controversy and hence, the government may lose potential voters. For example, Parliament may be hesitant to pass laws relating to euthanasia and same-sex marriage as they are sensitive issues to the public.

Both the courts and Parliament have their own individual merits as law-making bodies. However, the courts should not only resolve disputes, but also create laws - as Parliament does not always sit and the courts are quicker to pass laws through. On the other hand, Parliament is seen as the more effective law-maker for the reasons outline above; as they are a democratically-elected body and can make laws when the need arises.

werdna

  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Superstar
  • ******
  • Posts: 2864
  • Respect: +286
Re: 'Mark my Response' Thread
« Reply #7 on: October 04, 2011, 06:40:36 pm »
+1
A couple of things with this response:


The Commonwealth Constitution offers Australians protection for only a limited number of rights, but these rights are protected effectively by various means within the Commonwealth Constitution. Discuss the extent to which you agree with this statement. In your answer describe three means by which the Commonwealth Constitution protects rights. (10 marks)

I fully agree with the above statement as the Commonwealth’s Constitution only protects a limited number of civil and political rights in comparison to other countries such as Canada. However, the rights which it protects are done so very well as it’s often difficult to change or remove our rights.

Our rights in the Commonwealth Constitution are indeed limited as it only protects 5 express rights and 1 implied right - whereas Canada’s Constitution protects a far greater number of rights such as democratic, mobility and legal rights. One means by which our rights are protected is through Section 128 of the Commonwealth Constitution, as our rights are entrenched in the Constitution. Both express rights and implied rights are entrenched in the Constitution, meaning that it is often very difficult to change and can only be done so through what is known as a ‘referendum’ process under Section 128 of the Constitution - whereby the proposed change must be agreed upon by both houses of the Commonwealth Parliament (House of Representatives and the Senate), and the majority of states (i.e. 4 out of 6 states) and majority of voters (50% +1) must agree to the change. This process is very difficult to achieve and has had a low success rate in recent years with only 8 out of 44 being successful. This is one means by which our rights are protection through the Commonwealth Constitution. Furthermore, if laws passed by Parliament infringe on our rights such as the right to trial by jury in Commonwealth indictable offences, then they will be declared invalid by our courts (ultra vires).

Another means by which our rights are protected is through structural protections. An example of a structural protection is the separation of powers. The legislative function is the power to make laws and that is given to Parliament, the executive function is the power to administer laws and that is practiced in theory by government and the judicial function is the power to apply laws when disputes arise – that is given to the courts and other dispute-settling bodies. The separation of powers ensures that no one body has absolute power and hence, prevents any abuse of power among the three arms of the legal system. This allows for the effective protection of our rights in the Constitution.

A third means by which our rights are protected is through the bi-cameral structure of the Commonwealth Parliament. The House of Representatives and Senate acts as checks and balances to each other, ensuring that any proposed bill or change is responsible to the Parliament and particularly, the people, who voted them in. Both houses ensure that any bill passed is also representative of the people’s and States’ interests. The Senate, in particular, acts as a ‘House of review’ to the House of Representatives to ensure that any bill passed is acceptable. In this way, the bi-cameral structure of Parliament protects our rights which are entrenched in the Commonwealth Constitution.

Though the number of rights protected in our Constitution is limited, through such methods as Section 128 of the Constitution and structural protections such as the separation of powers and the bi-cameral structure of Parliament this ensures that our rights are protected effectively.

- I would avoid using first person and inclusive terms in the response, as it seems too informal. Also another small grammatical note; write out full words and avoid using contractions,  eg. say "it is" instead of "it's". Where appropriate, write numbers in words as well.

- For the paragraph on S128, you haven't really addressed the topic well enough. It is asking to what extent the limited number of rights are protected. As we know with the course, everything has its strengths and weaknesses - so to enhance your answer, address the 'to what extent' part by including some points on weaknesses as well. This will show a broader understanding of the topic, and remember it is a 'to what extent' question, meaning it is highly unlikely you fully agree with the statement anyway. :P

- The paragraph on structural protections is more factual than analytical. You've outlined how the separation of powers works, but you haven't discussed how effective it is in protecting the limited number of rights. You only really do this in the last line (which isn't sufficient) - and again, include some weaknesses that directly correlate to the strengths in order to address the 'to what extent' task word properly.

- The last paragraph on structure is a little bit weak, as you haven't really gone into depth with how the structure of both parliaments can lend to a greater protection of rights. You've touched on some strengths, but again you haven't included any weaknesses in there. Even though you could 100% agree with the statement, it would be a much smarter option to party agree (or partly disagree ) with it so that you can demonstrate more of your knowledge and skill.

The main area of improvement here is to be more aware of the task words for the essay question. This essay required an analytical discussion of how effectively rights are protected by the various means - therefore, it would've been a better idea to discuss both strengths and weaknesses as you'd be presenting a much stronger argument. To argue that the means are 100% effective would sort of be a cop-out, so be careful with the essay questions. Overall, a good effort and also a really broad understanding of the topics.
Proven, experienced VCE Year 12 English Tutor Study score of 46/50. Taught over 60 students with an excellent track record. Now registering students for 2019! Enquire now.

More info here:
http://melbourne.universitytutor.com/tutors/213806

eeps

  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Superstar
  • ******
  • Posts: 2533
  • Respect: +342
Re: 'Mark my Response' Thread
« Reply #8 on: October 04, 2011, 10:51:00 pm »
0
Cheers for the feedback mate. In retrospect, I should have partially agree. I didn't see weaknesses to the separation of powers and the bi-cameral structure of Parliament as structural protections.

Quote
To argue that the means are 100% effective would sort of be a cop-out, so be careful with the essay questions.

Yeh, I tend to agree with that. I approach these 10-mark questions as if it's an expository question in English - where there are two sides to the question.

Liuy

  • Victorian
  • Forum Leader
  • ****
  • Posts: 528
  • Respect: +5
  • School: Melbourne High School
  • School Grad Year: 2011
Re: 'Mark my Response' Thread
« Reply #9 on: October 05, 2011, 07:55:19 pm »
0
Quote
- I would avoid using first person and inclusive terms in the response, as it seems too informal.

Have a look at the Assessor's Report for the 2010 exam, it is advised that students indicate their personal opinion when asked either directly at the beginning of the response of incorporated within the answer.
'10: Chinese SLA [38]
'11: Legal Studies [50] | English [44] | Physical Education [41] | Psychology [31] + Methods
ATAR:97.85

'12: Monash University - Bachelor of Arts/Bachelor of Laws

nacho

  • The Thought Police
  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Superstar
  • ******
  • Posts: 2604
  • Respect: +417
Re: 'Mark my Response' Thread
« Reply #10 on: October 05, 2011, 08:06:20 pm »
+1
Actually from both assessment reports and the leading edge 'high-scoring responses' what i've noticed is that they tend to disregard english skills and care only about information.
as long as you mention the facts, i think you'll be fine. "I... we..." should also be fine as long as you include facts.
The great thing about legal studies!
OFFICIAL FORUM RULE #1:
TrueTears is my role model so find your own

2012: BCom/BSc @ Monash
[Majors: Finance, Actuarial Studies, Mathematical Statistics]
[Minors: Psychology/ Statistics]

"Baby, it's only micro when it's soft".
-Bill Gates

Upvote me

eeps

  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Superstar
  • ******
  • Posts: 2533
  • Respect: +342
Re: 'Mark my Response' Thread
« Reply #11 on: October 05, 2011, 10:54:05 pm »
0
I think the issue of using first-person language is a minor one. A good response is a good response nevertheless; as nacho alludes to. I do see where werdna is coming from though, as the all the actual 'responses' that VCAA gave in the 2010 assessment report didn’t include any personal pronouns etc. in the 10-mark questions. Sidenote: cltf and I did the CSE 2011 Legal Studies exam paper for a school trial exam. If any of you get your hands on it; it is well worth doing - especially for the 10-mark question.

bodriagin

  • Guest
Re: 'Mark my Response' Thread
« Reply #12 on: October 08, 2011, 06:25:11 pm »
0
I know these aren't 10 mark questions but since VCAA do not publish solutions to these questions, I thought that it would be a good idea to post them here.

The questions are from the sample questions published by VCAA.

I really need help in structuring my responses and help for how to answer question 2 b. completely.

Thank you!

Question 1.
Describe the role of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT).

VCAT provides an alternative to court resolution by providing various methods of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) to resolve civil disputes. The role of VCAT is to provide a flexible and informal environment to which disputes can be resolved fairly and quickly, to ensure justice is accessible and affordable for all those seeking to resolve a dispute.

(2 marks)

Question 2.
The Victorian Law Reform Commission (VLRC) recently completed a report on existing bail laws. One of its findings was that bail laws in Victoria needed to be simplified and streamlined.

a.   Explain one purpose of bail.

Bail is the release of a person who has been charged with committing a criminal offence from custody with the condition that they will appear in court at a future date. One purpose of bail is to uphold an individual’s legal right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in the court of law. By releasing the accused back into society, the presumption of innocence is being upheld whilst the burden of proof is laid onto the prosecution who must then prove the guilt of the accused in court at a later date. Bail allows the fundamental legal principles surrounding our legal system to exist.


(2 marks)

b.   Describe the role of the Victorian Law Reform Commission in attempting to bring about a change in bail laws.

In attempting to bring about a change in bail laws, the VLRC would first consult with people in society who would be directly affected by any changes to bail laws. The VLRC would then seek comment from citizens as well as experts in the area concerning bail laws before suggesting any recommendations to parliament.


(2 marks)

Question 3.
Paul has filed pleadings in the Supreme Court of Victoria against his employer, claiming his employer defamed him. One of the remedies that Paul is seeking is an injunction.

a.   Define the following terms.
i.   Pleadings

Pleadings refer to the pre-trial stage in civil proceedings where both parties to the legal dispute exchange documents containing written statements stating their case. Pleadings clarify the claims and defence of each party and also increase the possibility of an out-of-court settlement. The documents exchanged during pleadings include a writ (or originating motion) including an indorsement of claim (statement of claim), notice of appearance, defence, counterclaim (if made) and reply (containing a defence if a counterclaim is made).

ii.   Injunction

An injunction is a non-financial remedy that can be sought on its own or in addition to damages. It is a court order which aims to either restrain (restrictive injunction) or compel (mandatory injunction) activity performed by a person. Injunctions can also be ordered as either a permanent measure (perpetual) or as a temporary measure (interim) until a case is heard.


(2 marks)

b.   Discuss the extent to which an injunction may achieve its purpose in Paul’s case.

An injunction, in Paul’s case, may not achieve its ultimate purpose of bringing Paul back to his original position before the defamation occurred, however, it may achieve its purpose in restraining his employer from causing any further defamatory damage through a restrictive injunction. If the employer’s method of defamation was presented in a physical form such as through an article that was printed into a monthly newsletter, a mandatory injunction could order that the article be removed. In order for Paul to be fully brought back to his original position, a further remedy of damages may have to be awarded to compensate Paul for any loss of reputation and/or income as a result of the defamation.


(3 marks)

...more to come.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2011, 06:30:54 pm by bodriagin »

eeps

  • Victorian
  • ATAR Notes Superstar
  • ******
  • Posts: 2533
  • Respect: +342
Re: 'Mark my Response' Thread
« Reply #13 on: October 08, 2011, 07:01:54 pm »
0
With Question 2b, I would say: 'The Victorian Law Reform Commission is a government-funded, independent body whose role is to research, investigate and make recommendations on law reform activity in Victoria; referred to the commission by the attorney-general. In this instance, the VLRC would seek public opinion, organise meetings, produce discussion papers etc. to ensure that it has a thorough understanding of current bail laws, before making recommendations. The VLRC will produce a report with recommendations in it and this is tabled in Parliament for debate by the attorney-general, where Parliament will either accept or reject the suggested changes.' Other than that, your other responses are good.

bodriagin

  • Guest
Re: 'Mark my Response' Thread
« Reply #14 on: October 09, 2011, 12:10:59 am »
0
Just thought I'd do a quick question before heading to bed (been doing English).

I also have a Legal Studies question regarding implied rights. I know that the implied right to political speech is the only confirmed right that is currently implied but is the implied right to vote a viable right to talk about on the examination?

If we were explaining how the Commonwealth Constitution protects our fundamental human rights, would you say that we have 5 expressed rights and 2 implied rights that are constitutionally entrenched or would you say that we have only 1 implied right? Would I be wrong in saying that we have 2 implied rights (the right to vote and the vote to political speech)?

Question 4.
Select one case in which the High Court was called upon to decide an issue relating to the protection of rights in Australia.

a.   Why would the High Court have heard this case?


Under sections 75 and 76 of the Commonwealth Constitution, the High Court has jurisdiction to hear any matters relating to the Constitution or involving its interpretation. As the High Court is the only statutory body that has this jurisdiction, it would have to hear all cases concerning the Constitution and its interpretation.

(1 mark)

b.   Explain the significance of the High Court case you have selected on the protection of rights in Australia.

One case which relates to the protection of rights in Australia is the Roach Case. The Roach Case surrounded a piece of legislation (Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Act) that came into force in 2006, withdrawing the right of all prisoners to vote at federal elections. Before the introduction of this legislation, all prisoners serving a sentence of less than three years were entitled to vote in federal elections.

Vickie Lee Roach, an Aboriginal Australian who was convicted of five offences and sentenced to six years in jail, contested the validity of this legislation on the basis that it infringed the right to vote and the principle of responsible government - a fundamental aspect of our parliamentary system AND a form of structural protection of rights. The High Court decided the legislation was invalid and that all prisoners serving a sentence of less than three years are now, once again, entitled to vote in federal elections. Despite sections 7 and 24 establishing the terms of responsible government, Justice Gleeson noted that the Commonwealth can make exceptions and exclude certain groups from voting if there is a ‘substantial reason’ to do so. Thus, those that engaged in ‘serious criminal conduct’ (as determined by the length of the custodial sentence) are disqualified from voting in federal elections.


(4 marks)
« Last Edit: October 09, 2011, 01:07:40 am by bodriagin »