HSC Legal Studies Exam Thoughts (1 Viewer)

[jem1690]

Everybody good luck with the legal exam tomorrow. Leave your thoughts about it below if you want

 

[pikachu975]

Good luck

 

[jltech]

Found the exam pretty easy. The essay questions were broad, and human rights was straightforward. Just one or two odd multiple choice questions.

 

[SirLaptop]

Legal was easy, the essay questions were good, the crime essay was broad as all hell, and the HR shorts were incredibly straightforward. A multi choice question messed with my mind but the rest was easy. Absolutely popped off in the option essays, pushing the 2nd booklet for both. WO was super easy, and the GEP question was easy if you knew the contemporary issues.

 

[Frostguard]

Yeah pretty much what everyone else thought - Multiple Choice questions were a bit unexpected and aimed to trick us eg that question on the legal representation one? that was for most serious crimes right? Human rights was aight - god bless i studied separation of powers 4 questions tho and the shelter essay was ai yaaaaaaaaaaaaaa family was aight tho

 

[spaghettii]

That was by far the easiest legal exam out of all the trial papers and past hsc papers I've seen

...so naturally, I fucked up world order lmao
Nah but that was a pretty easy exam, the raw marks to get a b6 are probably gonna be bumped up as a result

 

[BLIT2014]

Any similarities with peoples trials?

 

[hello067]

for one of multiple choice q with ICC and high court of Aus, what did everyone put? I put it as ICC but then remembered how ICC was court of last resort, now im kind of thinking maybe high court of aus the answer

but yea that exam was pre broad and easier than I thought it would be

 

[jem1690]

i found the exam pretty easy, thank god the essay questions were pretty broad, might crack that band 4/5

 

[jjuunnee]

for one of multiple choice q with ICC and high court of Aus, what did everyone put? I put it as ICC but then remembered how ICC was court of last resort, now im kind of thinking maybe high court of aus the answer

but yea that exam was pre broad and easier than I thought it would be

i put down ICC as well bc i think it was for genocide with is a CAIC and why would the australian high court prosecute someone for a crime not done in australia??? also pretty sure high court only has appellate jurisdiction for crime

 

[spaghettii]

for one of multiple choice q with ICC and high court of Aus, what did everyone put? I put it as ICC but then remembered how ICC was court of last resort, now im kind of thinking maybe high court of aus the answer

but yea that exam was pre broad and easier than I thought it would be

Yeah I put ICC, no way it could've been High Court since the offence was outside of Aus (leader of another country)
Was tossing up between ICC and ICJ for a while though

 

[SirLaptop]

I instantly put ICC for that question, because the High Court and ICJ doesn't cover genocide. I was tricked by the deportation one (q20) into putting "They can be deported if the judge uses discretion to order deportation as part of the sentence", rather than "They can be deported if they serve a sentence of 1 year or more". I knew both of those were correct but I knew the one I answered was the more logical one.

As said before the multis were on the easier end but a couple mess with your mind and trick you into answering something else. At times there is 2 correct answers, and the actual correct answer is the most logical one.

 

[boredofhsc12]

I was tricked by the deportation one (q20) into putting "They can be deported if the judge uses discretion to order deportation as part of the sentence", rather than "They can be deported if they serve a sentence of 1 year or more". I knew both of those were correct but I knew the one I answered was the more logical one.

What does everyone think the correct answer was for that question?

 

[studyinggg]

Meh

 

[jjuunnee]

What does everyone think the correct answer was for that question?

chose c which was that they can be deported if they serve a sentence of 1 year or more. pretty sure the minister of immigration orders deportations not judges

 

[hello067]

Ooh oops well atleast what I chose was right... and yea I also chose that they can be departed if they served sentence of one year or more.. I was pretty confused with that one aswell

 

[boredofhsc12]

Another hugely annoying MC question for me was the legal aid question because my teacher said it is serious crimes but a serious crime doesn't necessarily mean that the defendant is pleading guilty or if theres no injustices occurring. but if the defendant is appealing against the conviction that means that theoretically they believe that there was an injustice that occurred and thats the main aspect of approving legal aid (other than means test but thats irrelevant here)

 

[boredofhsc12]

I've added a screenshot that shows that legal aid can be approved in cases in the local court (non serious crimes) proving that one wrong-ish. If y'all get your teachers on this they can change the answer which will allow both to be correct help the boredofstudies community out fam

 

[jltech]

The legal aid M/C question was really weird. For legal aid to be granted, people must pass the 4 tests, (1) means (2) jurisdiction (3) merits (4) availability of funds. In the Dietrich v The Queen 1992 case, the High Court ruled that in SERIOUS offences a trial could be indefinitely stayed (delayed) until legal representation is available. BUT this doesn't actually mean that committing a more serious offence increases your chance of legal aid - individuals for serious offences must still pass the 4 tests. Interestingly, it was precisely in this Dietrich case that Dietrich was DENIED legal aid because he refused to plead guilty. But I'm not sure if this applies to all cases.

Still torn between 'pleading guilty' and 'serious offence'. Dunno which one's the best answer here. If a more serious offence occurs, the damage to the accused will be greater, increasing their 'merits' component of legal aid, thus increasing their chances. In the same way, Ditriech demonstrates that legal aid can be denied purely on the basis that one refuses to plead guilty.

 

[spaghettii]

I don't see the point in legal aid if you plead guilty though? Isn't the point of legal aid to have someone properly represent you/support your case, which you wouldn't really need if you plead guilty?
Idk that's just what I thought, I ended up choosing the 'serious offence' option bc of Dietrich v The Queen, I personally feel it'd make more sense for legal aid to be prioritised to those who would be at risk of an injustice in a serious offence