General Thoughts: Legal Studies (2 Viewers)

[xjxmxhx]

The exam was harder than I expected, but in saying that, it was still manageable. Just thought the bos would go a little easy trying out the new syllabus. Oh well.
MC- Mainly easy, a few tricky q.
Human Rights - Happy with those q, although i forgot about NGOs, woops. Remembered some eventually.
Crime - Could answer it, wording was a bit odd.
Global Environmental Protection - meh. I didn't like the questions, just talked about state sovereignty, various treaties. Chose part b.
Family - Disappointed with the questions. They were both very similar, about families and children. I was looking forward to a question where i could discuss same-sex marriage and surrogacy, those two are great for discussing the effectiveness of the law. Chose part b.
Hoping for high 80s

 

[crazybea]

Hoping for a 18-19/20 for MC
Maybe like 13-14/15 for Short answers (not sure if i did the outline/5 marker one correctly talked about recognition of gay relationships - i do family so i wrote a shitload on it)
Hopefully full marks for rest.
hoping 94+

praying 2 god for about the same

they mark shit easy (from what ive seen)

so fingers crossed

 

[gunat61]

praying 2 god for about the same

they mark shit easy (from what ive seen)

so fingers crossed

what i studied for family didn't really pop up .. my fault tho. i wrote what iknew .. but how easy do you think "easy" marking is? like i put in heaps of evidence etv but not very good analysis

 

[crazybea]

probs 97+ is state rank

 

[gunat61]

actually .. i know a guy last year who got 96 but didnt state rank

 

[gunat61]

err i dunno never asked lol. i just know he got that mark and didnt rank.

 

[Phoenix 12]

Crime question was amazing, good times...

 

[Huang-Paradigm]

Good paper except.... MULTIPLE CHOICE WAS BULLSHIT

 

[alstah]

A collaboration of what I got and what my teacher told me:

1) D
2) B
3) A
4) C
5) A (However I thought it was ambiguous because it said Shane was 'waiting' implied he knew so might possibly be B)
6) B
7) B (My teacher said D, but I think because they planned the bank robbery, it is conspiracy as well. I could be wrong)
8) C
9) A
10) C (My teacher said D, but criminal TRIAL process - I thought had to establish a prima facie case first, thus C)
11) C (worst question)
12) A
13) D
14) B
15) B (I think its C though)
16) D
17) A (Strict Liability)
18) C
19) A
20) B


Agree/Disagree let me know

Q5 has to be A because it says Shane was waiting to assist them, meaning he'd be an accessory after the fact. It can be argued this implies that Shane knew about it before, however, this is not explicit.

I think for Q7, it has to be D. Conspiracy is only if they failed to actually rob the bank or their plans were unraveled, but it says the next day they robbed the bank, so it is robbery.

Q10, you are correct, I agree.

Q15, what makes you think its B? I put B down as well, but it was just a guess.

Based on this I should be getting 19/20, so i'm hopeful your pretty accurate lol.

 

[alstah]

The short answers were good imo, Crime essay was a bit weird when I first looked at it, but it seemed fine. Consumer and Family questions were open ended and great. Good paper over all.

 

[acemusic415]

Are they tough markers when marking legal?

 

[crazybea]

nope

 

[premiumcbc]

Q15, what makes you think its B? I put B down as well, but it was just a guess.

My understanding was that when the Australian Government has 'ratified' a treaty, they have already incorporated it into domestic law. Therefore it doesn't enable them to enact legislation because it already has been done. Thus, it criminalises breaches of the human rights that are inclusive in the treaty. I could be wrong though.

 

[wogboy23]

My understanding was that when the Australian Government has 'ratified' a treaty, they have already incorporated it into domestic law. Therefore it doesn't enable them to enact legislation because it already has been done. Thus, it criminalises breaches of the human rights that are inclusive in the treaty. I could be wrong though.

^^My reasoning exactly. B is what I put too
Ratification in itself its domestically incorporating law by amending an existing law or enacting a new law to echo the words of the new treaty. Therefore, it has already been done. The "practical effect" though would be basically its consequences - making breaches of human rights punishable in Australia

 

[funkygirl59]

My understanding was that when the Australian Government has 'ratified' a treaty, they have already incorporated it into domestic law. Therefore it doesn't enable them to enact legislation because it already has been done. Thus, it criminalises breaches of the human rights that are inclusive in the treaty. I could be wrong though.

+1.

It can't be A, because human rights are universal, inherent, inalienable etc. etc. so no signing of treaty means they now have human rights.

And then like you said, 'ratify' in Australia means we've SIGNED and INCORPORATED IT INTO DOMESTIC LAW --> that's why they say 'signed and ratified' because ratified implies we've already made a statute.
Which means that it's now punishable i.e. if the human right is in a statute in australia you can then go to the anti-discrimination board if someone breaches it or the federal court

 

[wogboy23]

Can I just inquire about question 7 (I already know there is discussion between options b and d)
Robbery is definitely the answer. But wouldn't it be B - because there was conspiracy to rob and robbery. I mean I know conspiracy is a preliminary crime but the same rules as attempt do not apply (i.e. conspiracy does not necessarily mean a botched or interrupted crime, rather just planning which is explicitly stated in the scenario). And surely there would be a difference between the severity of a planned robbery and robbery that was performed on the spot. I think it's B. Anyone care to agree/disprove?

 

[premiumcbc]

Can I just inquire about question 7 (I already know there is discussion between options b and d)
Robbery is definitely the answer. But wouldn't it be B - because there was conspiracy to rob and robbery. I mean I know conspiracy is a preliminary crime but the same rules as attempt do not apply (i.e. conspiracy does not necessarily mean a botched or interrupted crime, rather just planning which is explicitly stated in the scenario). And surely there would be a difference between the severity of a planned robbery and robbery that was performed on the spot. I think it's B. Anyone care to agree/disprove?

Well, I was looking at http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/a-z/conspiracy.html.

And it states 'One person may be charged with and convicted of both conspiracy and the underlying crime based on the same circumstances.'

Someone also said that conspiracy was a 'preliminary' offence. I think this is only the case when the act is not committed. However, if it is it doesn't fall under preliminary. Thus, that is why 'Conspiracy' category of crime.

I think it was B

 

[wogboy23]

Yep, you're link basically sums it up with a similar scenario portrayed

"For example, Andy, Dan, and Alice plan a bank robbery. They 1) visit the bank first to assess security, 2) pool their money and buy a gun together, and 3) write a demand letter. All three can be charged with conspiracy to commit robbery, regardless of whether the robbery itself is actually attempted or completed."

Similar to the test