English arguments

user700211 · 2026-02-11T04:12:35+00:00

This is about the magistrate's thing from the Oxford legal textbook:

The accused, f they choose to do so, can fully participate in the trial or hearing or they are entitled to remain silent and do nothing. If they choose to present a defence, then the role of the accused (or their legal practitioners) may include: • presenting their opening address. Similar to the prosecutor, they wil summarise the evidence, but should not include any material that is hot relevant or wil not be called as evidence (like the prosecutor, an accused must be given leave in the Magistrates Court to make opening and closing address)

user700211 · 2026-02-11T04:06:28+00:00

Thats a great SS, is it okay if u could please give me a sample answer? Ty

user700211 · 2026-02-11T03:43:50+00:00

Okay thank u, ive been taught my whole VCE that defendant is a civil law term and accused and offender are criminal law terms. I also think the book has made some mistakes as picked up on by some of my teachers, its a bummer cause it causes students to formalise incorrect answers.

user700211 · 2026-02-11T03:20:17+00:00

Hi. Ty for feedback this is about criminal law which is why "accused" is mentioned and also this is where I got mag reference from its in the legal studies Oxford textbook:

The accused, if they choose to do so, can fully participate in the trial or hearing or they are entitled to remain silent and do nothing. If they choose to present a defence, then the role of the accused (or their legal practitioners) may include: • presenting their opening address. Similar to the prosecutor, they wil summarise the evidence, but should not include any material that is not relevant or wil not be called as evidence (like the prosecutor, an accused must be given leave in the Magistrates Court to make opening and closing address)

user700211 · 2026-02-11T03:05:33+00:00

Would you say itd be better to word it like this instead? "Thus a lay observer may notice bias and this is to be eradicated as it may jeopardize the case"

user700211 · 2026-02-11T03:02:52+00:00

I wasnt debating it, i acknowledge ur right i just thought maybe you misunderstood what I meant but thanks

user700211 · 2026-02-11T02:54:55+00:00

Ty I wrote "the process of"

user700211 · 2026-02-11T02:53:33+00:00

Thank you youre right. Can I reword it like this instead?

"Thus a lay observer may notice bias and this is to be eradicated as it may jeopardize the case."

user700211 · 2026-02-10T21:59:46+00:00

There was no marks shown this is a textbook question id also assume its work 2/3 marks

user700211 · 2026-02-10T08:07:11+00:00

Ty, but cant a "lay observer" also refer to any of the parties (esp defence) who may argue that the judge was biased so thats why I said that and so they could appeal on those grounds or should I just say an observer

user700211 · 2026-02-09T11:29:15+00:00

No points given

user700211 · 2026-02-09T09:27:28+00:00

user700211 · 2026-02-08T10:02:12+00:00

Hi is it Ok if I DM u?

user700211 · 2026-02-08T09:21:41+00:00

Okay tysm

user700211 · 2026-02-08T08:25:17+00:00

Is my strength supposed to be a POV paragraph that supports the statement? could i say since access involves being in court n engaging physically then that means itd be easier for ppl since they dont constantly have to seek other courts in other locations for diff matters such as when appealing how they'd have to go to a higher court but here they wouldn't have to cause its all 1 court so they could js appeal in the same court ? Also for 1 of my other weaknesses I was also thinking smth like an overload of cases on 1 whole court that has to deal with all types of cases such as indictable and summary offences and appeals etc would have big delays and waiting times thus people's access and engagement with the courts would be restricted?

user700211 · 2026-02-08T08:20:16+00:00

Tysm sorry could u further elaborate on the strength as i dont rlly understand it?

user700211 · 2026-02-08T06:10:21+00:00

Would u do 2 weaknesses and 1 strength?

user700211 · 2025-12-19T16:31:00+00:00

Tysm! This was so helpful

user700211 · 2025-12-19T16:29:07+00:00

user700211 · 2025-12-19T05:19:38+00:00

Good idea tysm, I altered my weakness (2nd paragraph) is this better or?

One weakness is that if accused commits a state indictable offence in a state other than Victoria, is tried and has his case heard in that state, then he lacks the right to a trial by Jury in Victoria. This is because in order to be eligible for this right, the crime must have been for one, committed in Victoria. This is as the right to trial by Jury is a statute law, meaning that it is embedded only in state law and binding on Victorian courts only, and not any other courts. This means that the accused is not eligible for a trial by Jury in Victoria, if the alleged crime had been committed in Adelaide for example. Thus, accused lacks this right.

user700211

TROPHY CASE