QCAA Legal Studies Human rights in Australian contexts
5 sample questions with marking guides and sample answers · Avg. score: 100%
What two things must occur before a human rights claim can be commenced in the Federal Court of Australia?
Before a human rights claim can be commenced in the Federal Court of Australia, a complaint must be made to the Australian Human Rights Commission, and the complaint must be terminated.
| Descriptor | Marks |
|---|---|
Identifies that a complaint must first be made to the Australian Human Rights Commission | 1 |
Identifies that the complaint must be terminated | 1 |
What three things must an applicant prove in a human rights trial before the Federal Court of Australia?
To succeed in a human rights trial before the Federal Court of Australia, the applicant must prove three things. First, what happened to them, where it happened and who did it. Second, that the incident was illegal under one of the relevant federal anti-discrimination statutes (e.g. the Sex Discrimination Act). Third, that they suffered some sort of damage, harm or loss (e.g. loss of income) as a result of what happened to them.
| Descriptor | Marks |
|---|---|
States that the applicant must prove what happened, where it happened and who did it | 1 |
States that the applicant must prove that the incident was unlawful under one of the relevant federal anti-discrimination statutes | 1 |
States that the applicant must prove that they suffered damage, loss, harm and/or injury as a result of what happened to them | 1 |
Referring to Stimulus 1–7 in the stimulus book, examine two different viewpoints to analyse the effectiveness of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) in protecting the rights of people with disabilities who use assistance animals. Evaluate both viewpoints to decide the extent to which this legislation protects their human rights.
Viewpoint 1
Marking Bands| Descriptor | Marks |
|---|---|
Identifies a valid viewpoint linked to the nature and scope of the legal issue | 6 |
Identifies a valid viewpoint linked to the nature and scope of the legal issue | 5 |
Identifies a valid viewpoint linked to the nature and scope of the legal issue | 4 |
Identifies a valid viewpoint related to a description of the nature and scope of the legal issue | 3 |
Identifies a viewpoint related to the legal issue | 2 |
States a viewpoint related to the legal issue | 1 |
Does not satisfy any of the descriptors above. | 0 |
Viewpoint 2
Marking Bands| Descriptor | Marks |
|---|---|
Identifies another valid viewpoint linked to the nature and scope of the legal issue | 6 |
Identifies another valid viewpoint linked to nature and scope of the legal issue | 5 |
Identifies another valid viewpoint linked to the nature and scope of the legal issue | 4 |
Identifies another valid viewpoint related to the nature and scope of the legal issue | 3 |
Identifies another viewpoint related to the legal issue | 2 |
States another viewpoint related to the legal issue | 1 |
Does not satisfy any of the descriptors above. | 0 |
Decision
Marking Bands| Descriptor | Marks |
|---|---|
Provides an insightful decision about the extent to which the DDA protects the human rights of people who use service animals that is clearly linked to the relevant legal alternatives presented from the analysis of both viewpoints | 6 |
Provides an appropriate decision about the extent to which the DDA protects the human rights of people who use service animals that is linked to the relevant legal alternatives presented from the analysis of both viewpoints | 5 |
Provides a decision about the extent to which the DDA protects the human rights of people who use service animals that is linked to legal alternatives presented from the analysis of 1 viewpoint | 4 |
Provides a decision about the extent to which the DDA protects the human rights of people who use service animals that is linked to a legal alternative or the analysis | 3 |
Provides a decision about the extent to which the DDA protects the human rights of people who use service animals that is linked to the analysis | 2 |
Makes a statement about the DDA or service animals | 1 |
Does not satisfy any of the descriptors above. | 0 |
Using Stimulus 1–9 in the stimulus book, examine two different viewpoints to analyse the validity of the limits that Australian and Queensland laws place on prisoners’ right to vote. Present two different legal alternatives from your analysis. Justify a decision about the legitimacy of the limits.
Analysing - Nature and scope
Marking Bands| Descriptor | Marks |
|---|---|
provides an accurate explanation of the nature and scope of the legal issue | 3 |
describes the nature and scope of the legal issue | 2 |
identifies the legal issue | 1 |
does not satisfy any of the descriptors above. | 0 |
Analysing - Viewpoint 1
Marking Bands| Descriptor | Marks |
|---|---|
provides a perceptive explanation of a valid viewpoint and its consequence/s, related to the legal issue | 4 |
provides an effective explanation of a valid viewpoint and its consequence/s, related to the legal issue | 3 |
provides an adequate explanation of a valid viewpoint related to the legal issue | 2 |
describes a viewpoint related to the legal issue | 1 |
does not satisfy any of the descriptors above. | 0 |
Analysing - Viewpoint 2
Marking Bands| Descriptor | Marks |
|---|---|
provides a perceptive explanation of a different valid viewpoint and its consequence/s, related to the legal issue | 4 |
provides an effective explanation of a different valid viewpoint and its consequence/s, related to the legal issue | 3 |
provides an adequate explanation of a different valid viewpoint related to the legal issue | 2 |
describes a different viewpoint related to the legal issue | 1 |
does not satisfy any of the descriptors above. | 0 |
Analysing - Use of evidence
Marking Bands| Descriptor | Marks |
|---|---|
makes discerning use of a range of relevant information from the stimulus to support the analysis | 4 |
makes effective use of some relevant information from the stimulus to support the analysis | 3 |
makes satisfactory use of information from the stimulus to support the analysis | 2 |
refers to evidence from the stimulus | 1 |
does not satisfy any of the descriptors above. | 0 |
Evaluating - Legal alternative 1
Marking Bands| Descriptor | Marks |
|---|---|
effectively uses information from the analysis to present a relevant legal alternative | 3 |
uses information from the analysis to present a relevant legal alternative | 2 |
presents a legal alternative | 1 |
does not satisfy any of the descriptors above. | 0 |
Evaluating - Legal alternative 2
Marking Bands| Descriptor | Marks |
|---|---|
effectively uses information from the analysis to present a second relevant legal alternative | 3 |
uses information from the analysis to present a second relevant legal alternative | 2 |
presents a second legal alternative | 1 |
does not satisfy any of the descriptors above. | 0 |
Evaluating - Decision and justification
Marking Bands| Descriptor | Marks |
|---|---|
justifies a valid decision through effective use of relevant legal criteria | 3 |
justifies a valid decision using relevant legal criteria | 2 |
makes a decision and refers to legal criteria | 1 |
does not satisfy any of the descriptors above. | 0 |
Evaluating - Implications
Marking Bands| Descriptor | Marks |
|---|---|
effectively discusses a plausible implication of the decision | 3 |
discusses a plausible implication of the decision | 2 |
identifies an implication of the decision | 1 |
does not satisfy any of the descriptors above. | 0 |
Using Stimulus 1–11 in the stimulus book, examine two different viewpoints to analyse how criminalising public nuisance offences affects the right of access to justice for people experiencing homelessness.
Present two legal alternatives from your analysis and justify a decision about the extent to which homeless people’s access to justice is affected in Queensland.
Nature and scope
Marking Bands| Descriptor | Marks |
|---|---|
provides an accurate explanation of the nature and scope of the legal issue | 3 |
describes the nature and scope of the legal issue | 2 |
identifies the legal issue | 1 |
does not satisfy any of the descriptors above. | 0 |
Viewpoint 1
Marking Bands| Descriptor | Marks |
|---|---|
provides a perceptive explanation of a valid viewpoint and its consequence/s, related to the legal issue | 4 |
provides an effective explanation of a valid viewpoint and its consequence/s, related to the legal issue | 3 |
provides an adequate explanation of a valid viewpoint related to the legal issue | 2 |
describes a viewpoint related to the legal issue | 1 |
does not satisfy any of the descriptors above. | 0 |
Viewpoint 2
Marking Bands| Descriptor | Marks |
|---|---|
provides a perceptive explanation of a second valid viewpoint (must be different to first viewpoint mentioned) and its consequence/s, related to the legal issue | 4 |
provides an effective explanation of a second valid viewpoint (must be different to first viewpoint mentioned) and its consequence/s, related to the legal issue | 3 |
provides an adequate explanation of a second valid viewpoint (must be different to first viewpoint mentioned) related to the legal issue | 2 |
describes a second viewpoint (must be different to first viewpoint mentioned) related to the legal issue | 1 |
does not satisfy any of the descriptors above. | 0 |
Use of evidence
Marking Bands| Descriptor | Marks |
|---|---|
makes discerning use of a range of relevant information from the stimulus to support the analysis | 4 |
makes effective use of some relevant information from the stimulus to support the analysis | 3 |
makes satisfactory use of information from the stimulus to support the analysis | 2 |
refers to evidence from the stimulus | 1 |
does not satisfy any of the descriptors above. | 0 |
Legal alternative 1
Marking Bands| Descriptor | Marks |
|---|---|
effectively uses information from the analysis to present a relevant legal alternative | 3 |
uses information from the analysis to present a relevant legal alternative | 2 |
presents a legal alternative | 1 |
does not satisfy any of the descriptors above. | 0 |
Legal alternative 2
Marking Bands| Descriptor | Marks |
|---|---|
effectively uses information from the analysis to present a second relevant legal alternative (must be different to first legal alternative mentioned) | 3 |
uses information from the analysis to present a second relevant legal alternative (must be different to first legal alternative mentioned) | 2 |
presents a second legal alternative (must be different to first legal alternative mentioned) | 1 |
does not satisfy any of the descriptors above. | 0 |
Decision and justification
Marking Bands| Descriptor | Marks |
|---|---|
justifies a valid decision through effective use of relevant legal criteria | 3 |
justifies a valid decision using relevant legal criteria | 2 |
makes a valid decision | 1 |
does not satisfy any of the descriptors above. | 0 |
Implications
Marking Bands| Descriptor | Marks |
|---|---|
effectively discusses a plausible implication of the decision | 3 |
discusses a plausible implication of the decision | 2 |
identifies an implication of the decision | 1 |
does not satisfy any of the descriptors above. | 0 |
Using Stimulus 1–9 in the stimulus book, examine two different viewpoints to analyse the legal issue of freedom of speech in Australia. Present two legal alternatives from your analysis and justify a decision about the extent to which freedom of speech is protected under Australian law.
Nature and scope
Marking Bands| Descriptor | Marks |
|---|---|
provides an accurate explanation of the nature and scope of the legal issue | 3 |
describes the nature and scope of the legal issue | 2 |
identifies the legal issue | 1 |
does not satisfy any of the descriptors above. | 0 |
Viewpoint 1
Marking Bands| Descriptor | Marks |
|---|---|
provides a perceptive explanation of a valid viewpoint and its consequence/s, related to the legal issue | 4 |
provides an effective explanation of a valid viewpoint and its consequence/s, related to the legal issue | 3 |
provides an adequate explanation of a valid viewpoint related to the legal issue | 2 |
describes a viewpoint related to the legal issue | 1 |
does not satisfy any of the descriptors above. | 0 |
Viewpoint 2
Marking Bands| Descriptor | Marks |
|---|---|
provides a perceptive explanation of a different valid viewpoint and its consequence/s, related to the legal issue | 4 |
provides an effective explanation of a different valid viewpoint and its consequence/s, related to the legal issue | 3 |
provides an adequate explanation of a different valid viewpoint related to the legal issue | 2 |
describes a different viewpoint related to the legal issue | 1 |
does not satisfy any of the descriptors above. | 0 |
Use of evidence
Marking Bands| Descriptor | Marks |
|---|---|
makes discerning use of a range of relevant information from the stimulus to support the analysis | 4 |
makes effective use of some relevant information from the stimulus to support the analysis | 3 |
makes satisfactory use of information from the stimulus to support the analysis | 2 |
refers to evidence from the stimulus | 1 |
does not satisfy any of the descriptors above. | 0 |
Legal alternative 1
Marking Bands| Descriptor | Marks |
|---|---|
effectively uses information from the analysis to present a relevant legal alternative | 3 |
uses information from the analysis to present a relevant legal alternative | 2 |
presents a legal alternative | 1 |
does not satisfy any of the descriptors above. | 0 |
Legal alternative 2
Marking Bands| Descriptor | Marks |
|---|---|
effectively uses information from the analysis to present a second relevant legal alternative | 3 |
uses information from the analysis to present a second relevant legal alternative | 2 |
presents a second legal alternative | 1 |
does not satisfy any of the descriptors above. | 0 |
Decision and justification
Marking Bands| Descriptor | Marks |
|---|---|
justifies a valid decision through effective use of relevant legal criteria | 3 |
justifies a valid decision using relevant legal criteria | 2 |
makes a valid decision | 1 |
does not satisfy any of the descriptors above. | 0 |
Implications
Marking Bands| Descriptor | Marks |
|---|---|
effectively discusses a plausible implication of the decision | 3 |
discusses a plausible implication of the decision | 2 |
identifies an implication of the decision | 1 |
does not satisfy any of the descriptors above. | 0 |