VCE Legal Studies Question Thread

[dingaling]

Hey guys!
I have a sac for U3AOS1 coming up soon and I was working my way through the revision question in teh J&O book. I'm having a bit of trouble with Q6:
To what extent is there a right to trial by jury in Victoria? Justify your answer. [5 marks]
Does anyone know roughly what the mark breakdown for this question is or what the key points I should write about are?

Thankyou

[2madhatter]

Hey so, for this type of answer this is how my teacher would mark it.
1 mark - describe who has the right to a trial by jury
1 mark - opinion
1 mark - two strengths of this (justification)
1 mark - two weaknesses (justification)
1 mark - depth which can be a related case, additional strengths and weaknesses or the definition of a jury

hope this helps 

[dingaling]

Hey so, for this type of answer this is how my teacher would mark it.
1 mark - describe who has the right to a trial by jury
1 mark - opinion
1 mark - two strengths of this (justification)
1 mark - two weaknesses (justification)
1 mark - depth which can be a related case, additional strengths and weaknesses or the definition of a jury

hope this helps 

Thankyou so much!

[aspiringantelope]

Note sure if this belongs here, but
What is the difference between a Republic and Australia's constitutional monarchy?
Found a point somewhere else where
A. Appointed by the PM as is done for the Governor General or

B. Popularly elected.

Is this all? And true? And which one is which?

Sorry, not sure if this is the correct thread lol

[Jimmmy]

Note sure if this belongs here, but
What is the difference between a Republic and Australia's constitutional monarchy?
Found a point somewhere else where
A. Appointed by the PM as is done for the Governor General or

B. Popularly elected.

Is this all? And true? And which one is which?

Sorry, not sure if this is the correct thread lol

Haven't learnt it in Legal specifically, but I'll give it a crack. As far as I know, Constitutional Monarchies are lead by the Queen, whereas Republics aren't. For point A: yes the GG does it, and doesn't in a Republic.

[aspiringantelope]

Haven't learnt it in Legal specifically, but I'll give it a crack. As far as I know, Constitutional Monarchies are lead by the Queen, whereas Republics aren't. For point A: yes the GG does it, and doesn't in a Republic.

Ok thank you!
Just wasn't really sure where to post this question about government. xD

[meganrobyn]

Note sure if this belongs here, but
What is the difference between a Republic and Australia's constitutional monarchy?
Found a point somewhere else where
A. Appointed by the PM as is done for the Governor General or

B. Popularly elected.

Is this all? And true? And which one is which?

Sorry, not sure if this is the correct thread lol

A monarchy has a hereditary head of state, whereas a republic has a democratically chosen head of state (eg through election, with the people voting). A constitutional monarchy is a monarchy, where the monarch (head of state) has its power limited by a constitution.

I don't really understand the second part, sorry. Who is it that you're saying is appointed by the PM? The hypothetical Australian head of state in a republic? There are a number of ways a non-hereditary head of state could be chosen: one is direct election, another is appointment by the legislature or executive government.

[aspiringantelope]

Sorry, wondering again:
Would happen to the Constitution if Australia becomes a republic?
Like I know republic is when people vote representatives to go in parliament but I'm not sure if the constitution still applies?

And also does anyone know why the 1999 Referendum did not succeed? [Reasons behind not getting a majority]

Thanks!

[meganrobyn]

Sorry, wondering again:
Would happen to the Constitution if Australia becomes a republic?
Like I know republic is when people vote representatives to go in parliament but I'm not sure if the constitution still applies?

And also does anyone know why the 1999 Referendum did not succeed? [Reasons behind not getting a majority]

Thanks!

The Constitution would have to be amended in order for us to become a republic. The vast majority of it would remain the same, though.

In terms of failure, there are a bunch of reasons. One big one is that the most popular form of republic wasn't put to the people for the vote; a less popular option for choosing the 'president' was.

[aspiringantelope]

The Constitution would have to be amended in order for us to become a republic. The vast majority of it would remain the same, though.

In terms of failure, there are a bunch of reasons. One big one is that the most popular form of republic wasn't put to the people for the vote; a less popular option for choosing the 'president' was.

Thank you! 

[aspiringantelope]

Last one!
I do not get what this means - Section 107 of the constitution, can someone please rewrite this in like a flowing sentence that can be understood for younger people? Thanks
Every power of the Parliament of a Colony which has become or becomes a State, shall, unless it is by this Constitution exclusively vested in the Parliament of the Commonwealth or withdrawn from the Parliament of the State, continue as at the establishment of the Commonwealth, or as at the admission or establishment of the State, as the case may be.

[DoctorTwo]

Last one!
I do not get what this means - Section 107 of the constitution, can someone please rewrite this in like a flowing sentence that can be understood for younger people? Thanks
Every power of the Parliament of a Colony which has become or becomes a State, shall, unless it is by this Constitution exclusively vested in the Parliament of the Commonwealth or withdrawn from the Parliament of the State, continue as at the establishment of the Commonwealth, or as at the admission or establishment of the State, as the case may be.

Every power (power here means literal law-making power) of each state parliament will continue to be a power of each state parliament, unless that power is given to the Commonwealth parliament. Basically, the states keep all the powers they had before federation unless those powers are given only to the Commonwealth parliament. If they are given only to the Commonwealth parliament, then the states don’t have law-making power in that area anymore. It took me more than a few reads to get it but the title of the section was a huge hint ‘Saving of Power of State Parliaments’.

[aspiringantelope]

Every power (power here means literal law-making power) of each state parliament will continue to be a power of each state parliament, unless that power is given to the Commonwealth parliament. Basically, the states keep all the powers they had before federation unless those powers are given only to the Commonwealth parliament. If they are given only to the Commonwealth parliament, then the states don’t have law-making power in that area anymore. It took me more than a few reads to get it but the title of the section was a huge hint ‘Saving of Power of State Parliaments’.

Thank you SO MUCH!!! :]

[An_Ha]

Do you know what the role of common law and statute law in developing the law in relation to the offence of assault??

[jemima.allpress]

A practice question I have been given...

Imagine that you own a business with a turnover of more than $200,000 a year for the
previous financial year. You operate your business from a small site in a busy street.
You have heard that the local council has granted a planning permit for a multi-dwelling building valued at over $5,000,000 across the road from you. You and several others objected to the granting of the permit, but the council granted the permit anyway. You have decided that you want the decision to grant the permit reviewed by VCAT.

Discuss the extent to which you will be able to access VCAT to resolve this issue.  6 marks

I'm just a bit stuck because although VCAT have a review jurisdiction, would this case be too complex?