LEGAL INSTITUTIONS EXAM
SEPTEMBER 2015
EXAMINER’S COMMENTS
Overall, this question was well done, with most students responding to the questions well and
supporting their answers by reference to relevant authority. However it appeared that students
were not prepared to answer all the questions in the exam, and two questions were almost entirely
avoided by students.
In Question 1 Part A was generally well addressed however a surprising number of students were
unaware that Mills v Meeking is important because of the instruction to consider purpose first in
statutory interpretation, without the need to find an ambiguity or obscurity in the relevant section.
Those students quoting from this case often provided an irrelevant quotation – a good example that
it is important to ensure that quotations will support your argument, not replace it. Part B was often
not well done, with students too often simply copying out their notes about disputes between the
houses, without even considering the significance of these, and why ss5A,5B may lead to the
conclusion that NSW is in effect, if not in form, a unicameral legislature.
Question 2 was another question where a number of students responded by simply copying out
their notes, rather than answering the question. Most students recognised the importance of the
Australia Acts although some took the examiner on a very long – and irrelevant – detour through
Magna Carta and the Act of Settlement.
Question 3 was largely avoided by students, but those few who attempted this question, on the
whole, did it very well. Part A required a discussion of ss7A and 7B; Part B required a discussion of
judicial power; Part C required a consideration of the ability to legislate extra-territorially and the
role of the Australia Acts; Part D required consideration of ss7 and 24 of the Commonwealth
Constitution.
In Question 4 Part was generally well done, but responses to Part B were not as strong. There were
lots of very general references to executive power and the Williams case but often very little
discussion of s96 or the possibility of international conventions under s51(xxix). Similarly in Question
5 there was often a very broad discussion of Mabo, but little discussion about what the question was
actually asking – what Mabo can tell us about the High Court’s attitude to precedent. Part B was
generally better done, but again, a significant number of answers provided an emotional response,
not always supported by the relevant law and authority.
Question 6 was the other question which was largely avoided by students. This was a problem
question which asked students to engage with ideas of independence of the judiciary and consider
s72 in detail. S128 also needed to be discussed. Again, those few students who attempted this
question generally did a very good job.