VCE Legal Studies
Practice Exam Suggested Answers
Instructions:
Use these questions to help you prepare for your exam. Time yourself as if you were in the exam.
15 min Reading Time
90 min Writing Time
There are more questions here than you will face in your exam. You should aim to complete enough
questions to total 60 marks in 90 minutes of writing time.
**These are only suggested answers to the practice exam questions. Try the questions first before
looking at the suggested responses.**
Question 1.
Julie has been reading several reports about the use of capsicum spray by Victoria Police and wants
to try to influence the Victorian Parliament to change the law.
a. Outline the structure of the Victorian Parliament.
The Victorian Parliament consists of the Upper House and Lower House, as well as the Crown or
the Queen’s representative.
2 marks
b. Describe one way that Julie could use to try to influence the Victorian Parliament to change
the law.
One way that Julie could try and influence a change in the law is by organising a petition. A
petition is a document that consists of various signatures supporting the change in the law. Julie
can then present the petition to a member of parliament which is then tabled in parliament in an
attempt to influence a change in the law. The more signatures may have more of an influence on
the members of parliament in considering whether the law needs to be changed.
2 marks
c. After an individual has been arrested, identify one right of that individual and one police
power that could be used.
After being arrested, one right the individual has is the right to remain silent. One police power
that could be used is the right to question the individual in relation to the offence.
2 marks
Question 2.
Brandon has been found guilty of culpable driving and sentenced to 150 hours of community service.
a. In which court is it most likely that this case would have been heard?
Culpable driving is an indictable offence and is within the jurisdiction of the County Court.
1 mark
b. Who would have handed down Brandon’s sanction?
In the County Court, the judge hands down the sanction.
1 mark
c. Identify and describe one other criminal sanction that could have been imposed on Brandon,
and explain one of its purposes.
Imprisonment could have been imposed on Brandon, which involves physically removing Brandon
from society and putting him in a jail.
One of the purposes of imprisonment is to specifically deter Brandon; that is, trying to stop him
from committing the same or similar offence, as well as deter others (known as general
deterrence) from committing the same or similar offence.
3 marks
Question 3.
Explain one way in which the Commonwealth Constitution restricts the Commonwealth Parliament’s
law-making powers.
The Commonwealth Constitution restricts the Commonwealth Parliament from legislating in areas
of residual power. Residual powers are those powers left with the states at the time of federation.
The Constitution ensures that the States’ law-making powers are protected, and restricts the
Commonwealth from acting in areas of State power.
2 marks
Question 4.
Explain the role of a jury in a criminal trial in Victoria. Do you support the retention of juries in
Victoria? Give reasons for your answer.
In a criminal trial in Victoria, the role of the jury is to hear the evidence presented and decide the
facts – delivering a verdict on whether the accused is guilty or not. Juries play an important role in
Victoria. They promote fairness and justice and should be retained for the following reasons.
Firstly, criminal juries provide an opportunity for the community to participate in the justice
system. Although a judge alone could find a defendant guilty or not guilty, the community would
have greater faith in the result if the decision was made by 12 people rather than that single
judge.
Secondly, juries serve an educative function as ordinary citizens are able to learn about how the
justice system operates through firsthand experience. The use of juries can often ensure that the
law and the legal system remain intelligible to ordinary citizens. Although ordinary people may
have trouble understanding the intricacies of the law, they are assisted by the judge who can help
explain legal procedures to them.
Thirdly, criminal juries provide a trial that is free from political interference. Jurors are randomly
selected from the electoral roll and can therefore represent a broad cross-section of the
community. They are not employed or appointed by the government and decision-making is
spread across a number of people. Whilst juries may not be fully representative of our society,
they are far more democratic and representative than a single judge hearing a trial alone.
Finally, the use of juries allow for greater flexibility within the legal system. Unlike judges, juries
are not bound by precedent to apply ‘bad’ or outdated legal principles. Juries can therefore make
decisions that are more reflective of prevailing societal values and ensure a safeguard of personal
freedoms.
Despite some perceived disadvantages in the use of a jury, overall, our legal system is able to
function more fairly and effective with the use of juries.
8 marks
Question 5.
EITHER
a. A member of parliament recently declared that parliament has no weaknesses and should
be the only lawmaker in Australia.
Critically evaluate parliament as a law-maker. In your answer describe one aspect of the
relationship between parliament and courts in law-making.
10 marks
OR
b. A Supreme Court Judge recently declared that the adversary system of trial should no longer
be used in Victoria.
Critically evaluate the use of the adversary system of trial. In your answer describe one
possible improvement to the adversary system.
10 marks
There are both advantages and disadvantages associated with our adversary system of trial.
Firstly, both parties are responsible for presenting their own case. This can be a strength of the
adversary system because it allows both parties the opportunity to present their best case. On the
other hand, it can be a financial restraint for those who cannot afford the costs associated with
litigation in an adversarial manner. Secondly, the adversary system relies on complex rules of
evidence and procedure and therefore legal counsel is vital if parties to a dispute are to be able to
navigate their way around these rules. Because the judge is unable to actively participate in
adversarial disputes parties cannot rely on the judge to help them and therefore solicitors and
barristers are an essential expense. This can be an advantage as it ensures that the parties
understand and exercise their rights. Unfortunately, because of the fees charged by barristers and
solicitors many people are unable to afford to go to court and therefore are not able to protect
their legal rights or defend themselves against actions by others.
Our adversary system does work well, nevertheless, improvements could be made to some areas.
An aspect where little improvement is necessary is the strict rules of evidence and procedure that
operate in the adversary system. These rules ensure that evidence that has been illegally obtained
or is potentially unreliable is unable to be presented in court. Parties to a case are thereby
protected from being unfairly disadvantaged by having misleading evidence presented against
them. The rules of procedure ensure each party has an equal opportunity to present their version
of the facts. The procedure of examination-in-chief and cross-examination allows for evidence to
be tested and allows the court to see witnesses in person. However, a minor improvement that
could be made here is to allow the witness to first present their evidence in narrative form prior to
responding to questions from counsel. This could be less intimidating for witnesses who would be
better able to express what they wanted to say as well as being easier for a jury (if present) to
follow.
10 marks
Question 6.
Explain one characteristic of an effective law.
One characteristic of an effective law is that it needs to be stable. A law should not be constantly
changing otherwise people will not know what it demands. However, a law should be sufficiently
flexible to reflect a society’s changing needs.
2 marks
Question 7.
Explain the role of the Upper House in the Commonwealth parliamentary system.
The Upper House has the role of being a house of review in the Commonwealth parliamentary
system. The composition of the Senate is supposed to enable the Upper House to act as a checking
mechanism on the Lower House and government initiated legislation. This ensures that the states’
interests are adequately represented.
3 marks
Question 8.
Identify and explain one reason why we have a hierarchy of courts.
One reason for having a hierarchy of courts is for administrative convenience. It saves valuable
time and resources as similar cases can be dealt with using the same procedures and more
resources can be devoted to the busier courts – such as the Magistrates’ Court, where the majority
of criminal offences are heard.
2 marks
Question 9.
Describe one sanction available to a court in a criminal case and explain two of its purposes.
One sanction is imprisonment. This is when a convicted offender has his/her liberty taken away by
being held in custody for a specified period of time. This sanction fulfils the purposes of protecting
the community by removing the offender from society and also acts as a deterrent to others who
may not commit an offence because they fear that they will be punished by being sent to jail.
3 marks
Question 10.
a. i. Explain how the law-making powers of the Commonwealth Parliament and the State
Parliaments are divided under the Commonwealth Constitution. In your answer explain why
the Commonwealth Parliament and the State Parliaments are sometimes able to make laws
in the same area.
ii. Outline two restrictions imposed by the Constitution on these law-making powers.
6 + 2 = 8 marks
b. Parliament alone cannot meet society’s law-making needs. Although the courts have faults
as law-makers, it will always be useful for them to have a law-making role.
Explain how courts make law. Discuss this statement indicating the extent to which you
agree or disagree with it.
5 + 7 = 12 marks
OR
Question 11.
a. i. Taking part in a street demonstration is one way that people try to influence a change in
the law. Explain two other ways individuals and groups can attempt to influence a change in
the law.
ii. Explain two reasons why subordinate authorities are given a law-making role. Outline one
way parliament checks this law-making process.
4 + 4 = 8 marks
A petition can be an effective way to influence change in the law. A petition includes a
statement about what the law should be and is followed by as many signatures (often
with the address of the person signing) as possible. The petition should be presented to a
member of parliament or the Minister responsible for the portfolio that includes the law.
If a petition includes enough signatures demanding a change in the law then the MP or the
Minister may act on the demand. This is because parliament is representative of the
people’s needs and wants and is responsible to the community who elected it to power. If
petitions aren’t acknowledged by parliament then it may be that the community will not
vote for the same members of parliament at the next election. Defiance of the law can
also be effective in generating change in the law. When members of the public defy the
law it can achieve a lot of publicity and if the community supports the person who is
defying the law then parliament may act to change the law.
Subordinate authorities are given a law-making role because it is often a more efficient
use of time and resources for Parliament to delegate some of its law-making power to
other bodies. Parliament cannot be expected to make every single law that is required
given its other responsibilities and the length of the legislative process. Another reason is
that subordinate authorities may have greater local knowledge and expertise and can
therefore make laws that are appropriate to the situation. A local council for example will
have greater knowledge of its local area and its needs than the state or Commonwealth
parliament. Delegated law making is monitored by the requirement that all regulations
must be published in the Government Gazette. This allows citizens to know what laws are
being made and allow them to challenge them.
b. A weakness in Australia’s system of law-making is that both parliament and courts can make
law. It would be better if law-making was left to parliament alone.
Discuss this statement indicating the extent to which you agree or disagree with it. Justify
your conclusions.
12 marks
Total 20 marks
Question 12.
Annie has just been charged with armed robbery and will appear in the Magistrates’ Court today for
a bail application.
Explain two possible outcomes of this bail application.
One possible outcome is that Annie may be refused bail. If this occurs she will be remanded in
custody until the time of her trial.
Another possible outcome is that Annie may be granted bail. Consequently, this would mean she
would be released from custody until it is time for her to appear in court.
2 marks
Question 13.
‘The operation of the doctrine of precedent relies upon the existence of a hierarchy of courts.’
Explain the above statement.
If there was no hierarchy of courts the doctrine of precedent could not operate. The decision of
higher courts are binding on lower courts in similar cases in the same hierarchy, therefore if there
wasn’t a court hierarchy and all courts were on the same level the doctrine of precedent would
not operate.
2 marks
Question 14.
Andy is facing a term of imprisonment after he was found guilty of culpable driving. Andy was driving
a car which was involved in an accident and his passenger was killed. Andy’s blood alcohol reading
was well over the legal limit and the car was travelling at excessive speed.
a. Who would have decided whether Andy was guilty or not, in this trial?
Since culpable driving is an indictable offence, it would have been heard in the County Court
where a jury decides the verdict.
1 mark
b. If Andy wished to appeal, which court would hear this appeal?
Appeals from the County Court can be heard by the Court of Appeal.
1 mark
c. Outline, and explain the purpose of, two pre-trial criminal procedures which might have
taken place in this case.
One pre-trial criminal procedure which might have taken place in this case would be the taking of
blood and other samples from Andy. The police would have taken his blood sample to confirm the
results of the initial blood alcohol reading which showed that he was over the legal limit. This
evidence would support their case against him and ensure accuracy and fairness.
Another pre-trial criminal procedure which might have taken place would be a committal
proceeding. In a committal proceeding, a magistrate determines if there is enough evidence to
support a conviction in a higher court. If there is, the case would then be sent to the County Court
or the Supreme Court for trial.
4 marks
d. Discuss how the adversary system of trial might have helped to ensure that Andy received a
fair trial.
There are many features of the adversary system that might have helped to ensure that Andy
received a fair trial.
Firstly, individuals are responsible for the conduct of their own cases. This means that both parties
have an equal opportunity to present their strongest case. Andy would be able to present
evidence and witnesses that best support his defence.
Secondly, there are rules of evidence and procedure to ensure that both parties have an equal
footing. Both parties must follow the same rules and have the opportunity to question the
evidence and/or witnesses.
Thirdly, both parties are entitled to legal representation. This means that Andy would be
represented by a legal practitioner or legal aid if he cannot afford a lawyer who will ensure that
his rights are not being infringed.
Fourthly, the trial is overseen by an impartial adjudicator who ensures that both parties are
treated fairly. The judge is an independent referee who assists the jury to understand the law and
makes sure that the parties are following legal rules and procedures.
Fifthly, both the burden of proof and the standard of proof operate in Andy’s favour. The
prosecution bears the onus of proof which means that Andy is presumed innocent until the
prosecution can prove their case against him. The standard of proof ensures that there must be
sufficient evidence against Andy to show that he was guilty ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.
Finally, Andy has access to a system of appeal. This allows him to challenge his sentence or
conviction in a higher court. This promotes fairness by allowing Andy the opportunity to have his
case reviewed.
6 marks
Question 15.
Stefani has just become an Australian citizen and is interested in learning more about the Australian
legal system. She is particularly interested in the way laws are changed.
a. Outline the role played by the Crown in the law-making process.
The Crown (or its representative) gives Royal Assent which is the final approval required for a bill
to become a law.
1 mark
b. Explain one reason why laws may need to be changed. Provide an example to illustrate your
answer.
Laws may need to be changed from time to time when they no longer reflect prevailing
community attitudes or needs. For example, the law now recognises that rape within marriage is a
serious offence which must be addressed. This promotes greater equality between the genders.
2 marks
Question 16.
Describe one function of the Coroner’s Court.
Investigating reportable deaths in order to determine their causes. Reportable deaths are those
that are sudden, traumatic or unexplained or where the identity of the deceased is unknown. The
Coroner’s Court investigates the way these deaths occurred in order to determine a cause of
death, by doing this society can be made safer by the court suggesting ways to prevent some types
of deaths, for example, cot deaths.
2 marks
Question 17.
The police strongly suspect that Sara, aged 40, has committed a criminal offence and wish to
interview her at the police station.
Explain one individual right that Sara has and one power the police have in this situation.
One individual right that Sara has is the right to remain silent. This means she does not have to
answer any questions that the police ask her. This right ensures that citizens do not have to
provide incriminating evidence against themselves. However, Sara does have to provide the police
with her name and address. The police have the power to demand her name and address if they
reasonably believe she has committed a crime or has information that could assist them in the
investigation of an indictable offence. This helps the police to verify her identity and either
confirm or rule out her involvement in the offence.
4 marks
Question 18.
The following scenario contains several errors in the way this trial has been conducted.
Ghi Ni, aged 30, was charged with murder and her case went directly to the Supreme Court. A
magistrate today in the Supreme Court thanked the jury of 12 for their time. With a majority verdict,
the jury found Ghi Ni guilty of murder and sentenced her to 15 years imprisonment. One of the jurors
knew Ghi Ni’s brother very well from work.
Identify three errors in the above scenario and explain the correct process or procedure which
should have occurred.
The first error is that it states that Ghi Ni’s trial went directly to the Supreme Court. As Ghi Ni was
charged with murder, the case would most commonly be directed to the Magistrates’ Court for a
committal hearing, which will determine whether or not the case should go to trial.
The second error is that it states that a Magistrate presided in the Supreme Court. A Magistrate
does not preside over proceedings in the Supreme Court. Only a registered Judge of the Supreme
Court may conduct proceedings in this court.
The third error is that it states that a majority verdict was reached in a murder trial. A majority
verdict is not accepted in murder trials. If the jury were to find the defendant guilty (or not guilty),
a unanimous verdict of 12 is required.
6 marks
Question 19.
‘Two strengths of parliament as a law-maker are that it makes laws which reflect the views of the
community and can make laws whenever the need arises.’
Critically examine these two strengths.
I agree that parliament is an effective law-maker, yet I feel that while it’s effective in its primary
role of legislating, there are some significant weaknesses.
Parliament is a body of elected members who represent the community’s views in the laws they
create. If the community is dissatisfied with their members of parliament they can vote them out
of power. Therefore members of parliament are compelled to act both representatively and
responsibly. This subsequently means that the law created by parliament is such that it satisfies
the community and reflects the views and values of society.
There is a weakness however, and that is that parliament must create laws in a broad view to
cover a variety of situations and therefore they may not be able to fully reflect the diverse views
of the community. Also, parliament may become afraid of creating laws that protect particular
groups for fear of voter backlash and therefore we see that the parliament was not the primary
law-maker in areas such as abortion and indigenous land rights. Although parliament may not
enter into controversial areas of law-making it is still a representative body and therefore an
effective law-maker.
6 marks
Question 20.
‘The use of the adversary and jury systems in Victorian criminal trials ensures that we have an
effective legal system.’
Discuss the above statement and indicate the extent to which you agree with it, giving reasons for
your answer. Include in your answer an explanation of two elements of an effective legal system.
The adversary system and jury system in Victorian criminal trials generally do contribute to an
effective legal system by allowing for fair and unbiased hearings and reflecting prevailing values
and basic human rights. However, there are some aspects of each of these systems that reduce
their capacity to achieve these elements of an effective legal system.
The adversary system allows for fair and unbiased hearings by ensuring that the adjudicator or
judge is an impartial third party who does not participate in the collection or presentation of
evidence. Parties call their own evidence, regulated by strict rules of evidence and procedure, and
each party has an equal opportunity to present the best evidence to support their case and the
verdict is decided by an impartial judge or a group of 12 independent members of the community
who make up a jury.
Unfortunately, the complexity of the strict rules of evidence and procedure mean that legal
counsel is required to understand these rules. This means that it is very expensive to take a case to
court and may prevent some people from having access to this fair method of dispute resolution.
The jury system reflects prevailing values and basic human rights by ensuring that the community
can participate in the legal system. Jurors are selected at random from the electoral role to ensure
that a broad cross-section of the community are represented. The decisions made by juries should
therefore reflect the prevailing views and values of the community. Decision-making is also spread
across a number of people, rather than depend upon a single judge. This ensures greater
transparency and fairness to the accused as it is more likely that the decision will have the support
of the community. Moreover, the system ensures that the hearing of evidence is conducted in an
open forum so that basic human rights, such as the right to a fair trial, are clearly respected.
Unfortunately, juries may not always reflect the prevailing values of the community. Some people
may be excluded or excused from a jury, therefore it is not always fully representative of the
community. Moreover, jurors may bring their own prejudices and biases and be unduly influenced
by factors other than the evidence put before them. This means that their decisions are not always
fair, impartial or reflect the values and rights of our society.
The jury system and the adversary system have the capacity to contribute significantly towards an
effective legal system. However, there are some aspects of both that fail to provide for fair and
unbiased hearings and reflect prevailing values and basic human rights.
10 marks
Question 21.
Outline one role of the lower house of the Commonwealth Parliament.
One role of the lower house is that it forms government.
1 mark
Question 22.
Jocelyn has been charged with manslaughter. At the conclusion of the committal hearing, she was
committed to stand trial, and she was refused bail.
a. Explain the purpose of a committal hearing.
The purpose of a committal hearing is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to
support a conviction. This is done to ensure that the trial is not a waste of time and money.
2 marks
b. Outline one reason why bail can be refused.
Bail can be refused if a person is likely to be a danger to society or if they are likely to abscond.
1 mark
c. Outline one purpose of one criminal sanction which could be imposed if Jocelyn is found
guilty at her trial.
One criminal sanction that could be imposed on Jocelyn is imprisonment. The purpose of
imprisonment is to deter the offender from re-offending and to deter others from committing the
same offence.
1 mark
Question 23.
Identify two features of the relationship between courts and parliament in the law-making process.
One relationship between parliament and the courts is that parliament can codify the common
law made by the superior courts. This means that parliament puts into statute form the common
law. Another relationship is that the courts interpret the legislation passed by parliament. This
means that the courts give meaning to the words in statutes in the course of resolving disputes.
2 marks
Question 24.
Rosa, aged 18, has been charged with breaking into a house and stealing a plasma television. She
has decided to plead ‘not guilty’ to the charge and have it heard in the Magistrates’ Court.
Her friend, Danny, tells her that


Rosa could have this case tried in another court if she wanted to; and
If Rosa is convicted in the Magistrates’ Court, there is more than one possible appeal
available to her.
Do you agree with Danny’s advice? Give reasons for your answer.
Danny’s first piece of advice is correct. Rosa has chosen to have her case tried in the Magistrates’
Court because she has committed burglary, which is an indictable offence triable summarily. Since
it is a serious offence, she could choose to have this case heard by a judge and jury in the County
Court instead.
Danny’s second piece of advice is also correct. From the Magistrates’ Court, there are two avenues
of appeal – one to the County Court on conviction or sentence and one to the Supreme Court on a
point of law.
3 marks