How to ace your VCE legal studies final written examination

VCE Legal Studies is undoubtedly one of the most demanding subjects, requiring extensive writing and the ability to analyse complex stimulus material— especially in the final written examination. I vividly remember the challenge of structuring high-scoring responses under timed conditions. However, with the right strategies, I was able to secure an A+ and achieve a study score above 40. In this guide, I’ll share the key tips that helped me succeed.

Knowing The Exam Structure:

I cannot emphasise this enough — knowing the exam structure is important! In the lead-up to the final written exam, I did multiple practice exams to really understand how the exam was laid out. This was beneficial in the following ways:

1. It allowed me to avoid surprises and be more comfortable in the real exam
2. It allowed me to figure out a “plan of attack”

Under the 2024 study design, the Legal Studies exam features the following:

• 80 marks
• Section A: Short Answer Questions and the 10-marker (40 Marks)
• Section B: Questions with Stimulus Material (40 Marks)
• 15-minute reading time
• 2- hours writing time

Capitalising on Exam Structure:

Now that we know the exam structure we can figure out how to capitalise on it.  My general advice would be to use your reading time wisely.  You want to spend more time reading section B. Section A is relatively straightforward while section B features stimulus material. As VCAA specifically wants you to  “Use stimulus material to answer the questions”  it is important to understand it.  

My advice would be to split time in the following way:

• 5 minutes on Section A
• 10 minutes on Section B

In line with this, I would encourage starting with Section B.  This allows you to engage with the questions while the stimulus is still fresh.  This ensures that you have ample time to process the information and construct well-supported answers. Once Section B is complete, you can move on to Section A, where questions are generally more direct and require less interpretation. 

Finally, make sure that you keep to the 90 seconds per mark scheme, and dedicate at least 15 minutes for the 10 marker.

Approaching and Breaking Down Questions:

To gain full marks, it's important to know how to break down questions. In Legal Studies, 1-4 mark questions can be broken down into key parts, while questions above 4 marks are marked globally. This means different question types require different approaches.

How to Approach Questions Marked in Parts:

Approaching this type of question requires you to read the question and carefully break it down.  This is the approach I would recommend:

• Recognise command words: Look for directive words like evaluate, discuss, or compare to determine the required response.
• Recognise limiting words:  These are words that limit the scope of the question. For instance, if a question mentions “one difference” then only give one difference. 
• Identify key terms: Highlight important legal concepts and terminology.
• Consider mark allocation: Assess how many points need to be made and the depth of analysis required. For instance,  a 3-mark “explain” question would require less depth than a 4-mark “explain”  question.

Let's put this into context by tackling this question from the 2023 VCE Legal Studies Exam:

• Command Term: Explain – Provide a detailed account of one difference between summary and indictable offences.
• Limiting Word: One – Only one difference should be explained. This means you should focus on one aspect, whether it’s the nature of the offence, the process, or the penalties.
• Key Terms: Indictable offences and summary offences – This is the content we need to draw on to answer the question. Here, students must understand that these are two categories of criminal offences with different legal treatments.
• Mark Allocation: 3 marks – This requires a detailed, comprehensive explanation, not just a brief identification. You should aim to give enough detail to demonstrate a strong understanding, including a clear explanation of the difference with relevant examples (such as the use of a jury in indictable offences).

Exemplar response:

One key difference between an indictable offence and a summary offence is the procedure in which they are dealt with. Indictable offences typically involve a more complex legal process, including a committal hearing in the Magistrates’ Court to determine whether there is enough evidence for the case to go to trial. If sufficient evidence is found, the case is then heard in a higher court, such as the County or Supreme Court by a judge and jury. On the other hand, summary offences are usually dealt with quickly in the Magistrates’ Court, often without the need for a trial. These offences tend to involve fewer legal procedures, making the process more straightforward and faster compared to the more involved process for indictable offences.

How to Approach Questions Marked Globally:

Globally marked questions are those that ask for a more comprehensive, holistic response, usually worth 5 marks or more.  VCAA typically uses these questions to test your overall understanding of a concept or issue. This means that you are required to demonstrate a deeper level of analysis, synthesis, and evaluation. While there isn’t  a “one set approach” to answer these globally marked questions the following is beneficial:

•  Understand the Question Fully: Before starting your answer, take a moment to read and unpack the question. This ensures you grasp the full scope of what’s being asked. Globally marked questions often involve multiple aspects of a topic, so be sure you aren’t just focusing on one area. Look out for command words like “evaluate”,  “discuss”, or “analyse” that signal you need to give a well-rounded response.
•  Plan Your Answer: With globally marked questions, it’s easy to get lost in too much detail. To avoid this, break down your answer into a clear structure.  I like to think of it as a “mini-essay”. The typical format entails  the following: 
• Introduction: Briefly outline the issue or concept in question and indicate the areas you will cover.
• Body Paragraphs: Each paragraph should address one key aspect or point. Provide specific examples to support your argument and make sure each point builds upon the previous one. Using signposting words like “a strength is”, “another strength is”, and “however a weakness is…” is useful. 
• Conclusion: Sum up your response by tying everything together. Restate your main contention. 
• Provide Depth and Balance: In your response, you’ll need to demonstrate both depth and balance. That means explaining key concepts in detail, providing multiple perspectives, and offering well-rounded analysis. Avoid giving surface-level answers. For example, if you’re asked to “discuss the role of the courts in upholding the law,” don’t just list the functions of courts. Instead,  use your content knowledge to examine strengths and weaknesses. Provide examples and link to case studies as this adds substance and nuance to your response. 
• Use Relevant Legal Terminology: Legal Studies is a subject that places a heavy emphasis on specific legal terminology. Using appropriate legal language—such as “precedent,” “statutory interpretation,” or “burden of proof”—adds credibility to your response and demonstrates your understanding of the subject. Just make sure you’re clear and accurate when using these terms. 
• Answer the Whole Question: It can be tempting to veer off on tangents, especially if you know a lot about the topic. However, make sure every part of your response directly answers the question. Stay focused and keep the bigger picture in mind. For example, if the question asks you to “evaluate the effectiveness of  Express Rights in protecting Australians,” you shouldn’t just discuss the express rights themselves. Include a discussion pointing to any criticisms or gaps, and certain limitations. 

Breaking Down a High-Scoring Globally Marked Response:

‘Parliament will always be more effective in law-making when compared to courts. Therefore, courts should leave the duty of creating and amending laws to parliament.’

Discuss the extent to which you agree with this statement (10 Marks)

Here, the question is asking you to evaluate the effectiveness of parliament and courts in the law-making process. The key command term here is “discuss”  which signals the need for a well-rounded analysis of both sides of the issue. It’s also asking you to take a position — you must discuss the extent to which you agree with the statement.

Exemplar (Annotated):

It is to a moderate extent that I agree with this statement. [The student clearly establishes the extent to which they agree.]While parliament may, at times, be more effective in making laws when compared to courts, it is subject to limitations. Due to this, courts should not completely leave the duty of creating and amending laws to parliament. [The student presents their stance on the statement and outlines the structure of their argument, highlighting that both parliament and courts have strengths and weaknesses.]

Firstly, parliament is generally more representative than the courts in law-making. [Signposting is used through “Firstly”.] Members of Parliament (MPs) are elected by Australians who are eligible to vote, and as such, MPs must reflect the views, values, and interests of their constituents during law-making. MPs engage in direct communication with their constituents through means like community visits and letters to the MP, ensuring that the laws they create are aligned with the needs of the people. [This sentence introduces the key point of representation, laying out the argument for why parliament is effective.] This ability to create representative law is further strengthened by the fact that if MPs fail to adequately represent their constituents, the Australian public can use their voting power to remove them from parliament. [The student further fleshes out their argument.] By contrast, judges are not elected by the people and may not consider a wide range of societal views and values when making decisions, potentially compromising their ability to engage in representative law-making. [Here, the student makes a direct comparison between parliament and the courts, explaining why the latter might lack broad representation.]

However, one reason why courts may be more effective in law-making is that they are not subject to political pressures.  [Signposting is used through “However”.]  MPs, who can be voted out of office, may sometimes avoid making bold or controversial decisions, creating “safe laws” that sidestep significant social issues marked by polarising perspectives in the community. [Here the student presents a valid counterpoint: the influence of political pressures on MPs could hinder bold law-making.] Additionally, MPs are often aligned with political parties, which can influence their votes and prevent them from fully reflecting their constituents' interests. As the judiciary is separate from parliament, judges are free from such political pressures, which enables them to make more independent and often controversial legal decisions. [This section highlights the advantage of judicial independence and allows the student to further extend their argument.] A notable example of this is the Mabo case, where the High Court overruled the common law principle of terra nullius and recognized land rights for First Nations peoples. This decision led to the passage of the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth), which further demonstrates the potential of courts to make and amend laws, particularly when parliament may be hesitant to address contentious social issues due to political risks. [The student uses the  Mabo case study. This serves as a strong example to back up the argument, showcasing the judiciary’s ability to act where parliament may hesitate.]

Another reason why parliament is effective in law-making is the substantial scrutiny legislation undergoes. [Signposting is used through “Another reason”. As most Australian parliaments are bicameral, bills are debated and examined in both houses before becoming law. This rigorous process, including review by parliamentary committees such as the Senate Standing Committee, ensures that laws are carefully considered and refined before they are enacted. [This section highlights the thorough process parliamentarians must go through, ensuring detailed examination.] This scrutiny allows for the identification of potential issues, and alignment with public policy objectives, and ensures that the legislation is fair, clear, and comprehensive. [The argument here stresses the importance of this scrutiny in achieving fair and well-crafted laws.] By contrast, the judicial process lacks this level of scrutiny, and thus, parliament may be more effective in creating well-considered laws. [A direct comparison with the courts helps reinforce the student’s point.]

However, due to the lengthy process of parliamentary law-making, courts may sometimes be more efficient in enacting laws.   [Signposting is used through “However”.]  Courts do not need to engage in debates or extensive scrutiny, allowing them to make legal decisions more quickly. [This counterpoint points out a potential advantage of the courts via sp eed.] That said, the limitation is that for courts to make laws, a party with standing, time, and resources must first initiate legal action, which can restrict their efficiency. [The student acknowledges a limitation of the courts, ensuring a balanced view.]

Thus,  I moderately agree with the statement. While parliament is often more effective in law-making due to its representative nature and detailed scrutiny processes, courts can sometimes address significant social issues more promptly and independently, especially in situations where parliament is hesitant to act. [The conclusion ties together the arguments, reiterating the moderate stance while acknowledging the respective strengths of both parliament and the courts.]

Want more personalised study guidance to help drastically improve your marks? A private tutor can make the biggest difference!

Written by KIS Academics Tutor for VCE Legal Studies, Psychology, English and Literature,  Sonnet Pandit. Sonnet is currently pursuing a Bachelor of Arts at the University of Melbourne. Sonnet achieved perfect scores in English and Psychology and above 40 in all her subjects.