VCE Legal Studies 2025

Question 6 (10 marks): Dispute resolution methods and the principles of justice

Based on Question 6 (10 marks). Evaluate how effectively the dispute resolution methods used in the Victorian civil justice system achieve the principles of justice (fairness, equality and access).

Model answer (structure and key points):

1. Judgement up front. Dispute resolution methods achieve the principles of justice to a moderately high extent: the cooperative methods are strongest on access, while judicial determination is strongest on fairness, and each has a weakness the others cover.
2. Mediation and conciliation (fairness and access). An impartial third party lets both sides tell their story in an informal, discussion-based setting, and the parties control the outcome, so they are more likely to accept it. Conciliation through Consumer Affairs Victoria is free, and both methods are quicker and cheaper than a trial because legal representation is often unnecessary, which strongly supports access. However, both are closed processes, and where there is a power imbalance the weaker party may give up too much, so equality depends heavily on the skill of the mediator or conciliator.
3. Arbitration (fairness and access). The arbitrator is impartial and both parties present evidence, so the process is broadly fair, and it is usually faster than litigation. On the other hand, the award is binding with limited avenues of appeal, it is not public, and its cost can shut out parties without resources, which weakens access and equality.
4. VCAT hearings (equality and access). Legal representation is generally not used, so an unrepresented party is less likely to be outmatched, and the lower cost and simpler procedure give faster resolution. The trade-off is that appeals are limited to questions of law.
5. Judicial determination (fairness and equality). An independent judge or magistrate, open hearings and strict rules of evidence and procedure give both parties an equal opportunity to present their case, which is the strongest guarantee of a fair process. But the same formality and complexity mean a party who cannot afford a lawyer may be unable to present their case well, and trials in the higher courts can be lengthy, reducing access.
6. Weigh and conclude. Because the system offers a range of methods, most disputes can be matched to a method that suits them, so overall the principles are well achieved; the main limit is that the cheapest, most informal methods rely on the skill of the third party to protect equality, while the method with the strongest procedural safeguards (judicial determination) is the least accessible.

Marker's note: The report required an overall judgement based on the points for and against, linked with words such as "because" or "while", and it could appear at the start. Checklists of points did not score highly, and responses that discussed institutions (for example court delays) rather than methods lost marks. You do not need every method against every principle.

Question 5 (7 marks): Parliament and courts in law-making

Based on Question 5 (7 marks). Analyse the relationship between parliament and the courts as law-makers.

Model answer:

• (a) Supremacy of parliament. Parliament is the supreme law-making body within its constitutional powers. This means it can pass statutes that override the common law, and it also sets up courts and defines their jurisdiction, so it shapes the space in which courts can make law at all. This is significant because courts can only make law when a case is brought before them, whereas parliament can act whenever it chooses.
• (b) Codification. Parliament may adopt a principle the courts developed in a case by enacting it in legislation, which confirms it and makes it more accessible. The impact is that a judge-made rule gains the authority of statute.
• (c) Abrogation. Where parliament considers a precedent out of step with community values, it can pass legislation to cancel it (except for High Court decisions interpreting the Constitution). This shows the relationship is not equal: courts create, but parliament has the final word.
• (d) Courts influencing parliament. Judges may comment, in the ratio or in obiter, that a law is unjust or needs change, or a court bound by precedent may reach a decision that exposes a flaw. The effect is that parliament is prompted to legislate, so courts act as a trigger for statutory reform.
• (e) Statutory interpretation. Courts interpret the words of statutes when applying them, and that interpretation becomes precedent. Parliament may then amend the Act if it disagrees, which again shows the two institutions working together, each correcting and completing the other.

Marker's note: "Analyse" required identifying the relationships and explaining their significance, cause and effect. The report said many responses confused this relationship with the separation of powers (which the study design treats as a constitutional check on parliament), and many wrongly said courts only make law by interpreting statutes. Courts also make common law when resolving disputes in areas such as negligence, defamation and contract, and it is usually these principles that parliament codifies or abrogates.

Question 4c (4 marks): The 1967 referendum and Commonwealth law-making power

Based on Question 4c (4 marks). Explain what the 1967 referendum did to the law-making powers of the Commonwealth Parliament.

Model answer:

1. The change. The referendum removed the words in the race power (section 51(xxvi)) that stopped the Commonwealth from making laws for Aboriginal people, and it removed section 127, which had excluded Aboriginal people from being counted in the population.
2. Impact 1: power expanded. Laws for First Nations Peoples had been a residual area left to the states. After 1967 the Commonwealth could legislate for them under the race power, so the area became a concurrent power and the Commonwealth's law-making power increased.
3. Impact 2: using the power. This allowed the Commonwealth to pass national laws for First Nations Peoples, such as the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), and, because the power is concurrent, a valid Commonwealth law could prevail over an inconsistent discriminatory state law under section 109.
4. Impact 3: counting everyone. With section 127 gone, First Nations Peoples were included when the population was counted (for example in the census), so the Commonwealth could make laws and policy based on the whole population.

Marker's note: The report said a retelling of the referendum, or its social significance, was not enough; the answer had to be about law-making power. The race power did not become exclusive: it is concurrent, and the change removed a prohibition. Section numbers were not required.

Section B Question 1e (5 marks): Can damages achieve their purposes for Agu and Kim?

Based on Section B, Question 1e (5 marks). Discuss the extent to which damages could achieve their purposes for Agu and Kim, whose house must be demolished after Emma's modifications.

Model answer:

• Judgement. Damages could achieve their purposes only to a limited extent in this case.
• Purpose 1: compensation (positive). Compensatory damages aim to make up for the loss the plaintiffs suffered. Agu and Kim's main losses are quantifiable: the cost of demolishing and rebuilding, lost rent while the property is out of action and lost rent until a new tenant moves in. Specific damages can be calculated precisely for all of these, so in principle a court can award the full amount.
• Purpose 2: restoration (positive). A matching award would restore them, as far as money can, to the financial position they were in before Emma rented the property.
• Limitation 1: no ability to pay. Emma's assets were seized as the proceeds of crime and she faces mandatory imprisonment for category 2 offences, so she has no assets or income. An award she cannot pay neither compensates nor restores Agu and Kim.
• Limitation 2: harm money cannot fix. Without rent they may struggle with mortgage repayments, cannot sell the uninhabitable house for its former value, and have suffered stress. General damages can try to value stress, but it is hard to quantify, and the risk of losing the property remains.
• Conclusion. The purposes are achievable on paper because the losses are measurable, but in practice they are unlikely to be met because the defendant cannot pay.

Marker's note: "Purposes" is plural, so responses covering only one purpose could not score more than 3 marks; restoration was the most common choice. The report also noted that the "extent to which" statement was often missing, and that both positive and negative points had to be linked to Agu and Kim.

Section B Question 1d (3 marks): One enforcement issue

Based on Section B, Question 1d (3 marks). Explain one enforcement issue Agu and Kim should think about before suing Emma.

Model answer:

1. Define. An enforcement issue is a difficulty in making the defendant actually comply with a remedy, here paying damages, once the court has found them liable.
2. Apply. Emma's assets were all seized as the proceeds of crime (Source 1), and because her offences are category 2 offences she will be imprisoned, so she will have no income from which payments could be deducted. Even after release she may struggle to find work.
3. Consequence. Agu and Kim could win and still recover nothing, while paying legal costs and the cost of enforcement proceedings, leaving them further out of pocket. They should weigh this before starting the claim.

Final answer: Emma's inability to pay any damages awarded, because her assets have been seized and she will be in prison.

Marker's note: Only enforcement issues were relevant. The report said cost, time and limitation of actions were generally not relevant on their own, and the stimulus facts (assets seized, imprisonment) were the clear indicators to use.

Section B Question 2d (6 marks): One factor affecting parliament's ability to reform protest laws

Based on Section B, Question 2d (6 marks). Discuss one factor that may affect parliament's ability to reform laws on protests, using the sources.

Model answer (factor: bicameral structure):

• (a) Explain the factor. Both the Victorian and Commonwealth Parliaments are bicameral, so a bill must pass both houses in identical form before it can become law.
• (b) Limitation, Commonwealth. In Source 2 the Greens want a national law enshrining the right to protest. At the time they held the balance of power in the Senate with 11 of 76 seats, but they do not control the House of Representatives, so they would need the government's support in both houses for the bill to pass. Equally, a government wanting to tighten protest rules would need Greens or other non-government senators to vote with it, and the price of that support may be amendments the government does not accept.
• (c) Limitation, Victoria. In Source 1 the Opposition Leader promises to reintroduce move-on laws. As the opposition, his party does not control the Legislative Assembly, so it cannot pass them now; if elected, it could still face an upper house where the government lacks a majority, which could delay the bill, amend it or send it to a committee.
• (d) Strength. The upper house acts as a house of review. Protest laws affect a Charter right to peaceful assembly, so review and committee scrutiny can improve a hastily drafted bill and balance protesters' rights against the business and commuter concerns in Sources 3 and 4.
• (e) Judgement. The bicameral structure makes it harder and slower for parliament to reform protest laws, especially without an upper house majority, but it helps make any reform that does pass more considered.

Marker's note: The report stressed "one factor" only, and that a discussion must weigh how the factor enhances as well as limits law reform. Merely saying there are two houses was not enough: strong answers explained that both houses must pass the bill in identical form, used the Greens' balance of power from Source 2 and dealt with a hostile upper house. Using the stimulus was essential.