…
2026 VCE Legal Studies exam: What to learn from last year's mistakes
Hi all, in preparation for the upcoming exam, here's what to learn from last year's mistakes.
2025 median exam grade: C+. VCAA does not publish an exact median mark.
Average: 42.35/80, or 52.9%. VCAA reports 84.7/160; this is converted to the exam's 80-mark scale.
9,123 students assessed. 8.0% received A+. The 2025 A+ cutoff was 122/160, equivalent to 61/80. That is last year's cutoff, not a prediction for 2026.
Figures: VCAA's 2025 grade distribution, written examination on page 3: source.
Question averages come from the 2025 examiner report: source. Percentages are rounded. My examples illustrate the fixes; they are not full model answers.
A4a: Parliament's role in a referendum
Average: 0.8/2. 35% received zero. Only 12% received full marks.
Where students went wrong: They gave vague information about educating voters, said Parliament counts the votes, or placed Royal Assent before the referendum.
What they should have done: Explain Parliament's role in passing the proposed constitutional alteration.
The normal route is an absolute majority in each House passing the proposed alteration. That means more than half of all members of each House, not just those voting. Royal Assent comes after a successful referendum. Explaining the public's double majority alone does not answer a question about Parliament's role.
A5: The relationship between Parliament and courts
Average: 3.0/7. 10% received zero. Only 1% received full marks.
Where students went wrong: They wrote about separation of powers instead of the law-making relationship. Some claimed courts only create common law through statutory interpretation.
What they should have done: Explain how the institutions affect each other's law-making, including the significance of that relationship.
Parliament can pass legislation that replaces a common law rule. This means a court's decision can prompt reform, but Parliament can determine the replacement rule within its constitutional powers. That explains the consequence of abrogation. Simply defining Parliament and courts separately does not analyse their relationship.
A4c: What the 1967 referendum changed
Average: 1.7/4. 26% received zero. Only 8% received full marks.
Where students went wrong: They retold the referendum or discussed recognition generally, rather than explaining its effect on Commonwealth law-making power.
What they should have done: Identify the constitutional changes and connect them to what the Commonwealth could do.
Changing the race power allowed the Commonwealth to legislate specifically for Aboriginal Australians, an area previously left to the states. This became a concurrent power, not an exclusive Commonwealth power. Removing section 127 also removed their exclusion from constitutional population counts. Explain those changes rather than writing only that the referendum improved equality.
B2d: One factor affecting protest-law reform
Average: 2.0/6. 28% received zero. Only 2% received full marks.
Where students went wrong: They needed one developed discussion, not several named factors. The response also had to use the supplied protest-law material.
What they should have done: Choose one factor and explain how it could help and hinder reform in that scenario.
If choosing Parliament's representative nature, explain that MPs can respond to community pressure because they want re-election. Then use the disagreement between protesters and affected businesses to show the difficulty: competing views make it harder to identify a reform that voters will support. Both sides of the discussion remain about the same factor.
B1e: Whether damages could achieve their purposes
Average: 2.5/5. 7% received zero. Only 2% received full marks.
Where students went wrong: Many discussed only one purpose. That capped them at 3/5. Others omitted a judgement about the extent to which damages could work.
What they should have done: Discuss more than one purpose, apply both sides to Agu and Kim, then give a supported judgement.
Damages could compensate their measurable rebuilding costs and help restore their financial position. But Emma's assets had been seized and she faced imprisonment, limiting her ability to pay. An award on paper therefore might achieve neither compensation nor restoration in practice. That supports a limited judgement, rather than an automatic claim that damages will fix the loss.
A3: Express rights as a check on Parliament
Average: 2.5/5. 14% received zero. Only 6% received full marks.
Where students went wrong: A one-sided explanation or a list of rights did not provide the required judgement about how effective the check is.
What they should have done: Explain a protection, examine its limits and state how far you agree.
An express constitutional right can support a High Court challenge to an inconsistent law. But somebody with standing must bring that challenge, which can be expensive. Section 116 also restricts Commonwealth law-making rather than state law-making. Those limits matter when judging the protection's reach.
A2b: Prosecution versus plaintiff
Average: 2.5/4. 4% received zero. Only 11% received full marks.
Where students went wrong: Many stopped after saying both have the burden of proof but different standards. Others failed to use the case.
What they should have done: Compare the roles in the scenario with enough detail to explain both similarities and differences.
Both the prosecution and Andy, the plaintiff, present evidence and have disclosure obligations. The prosecution must prove Grant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Andy must establish civil liability on the balance of probabilities and seeks a remedy for his loss. Link each role to the actual party rather than writing two detached definitions.
Try A4a, A5 and B1e before reading their report sections. Together they are worth 14 marks. Check whether each sentence answers the command term and uses the facts the question gave you.
Use the VCE Legal Studies hub and past papers and examiner reports alongside this.
0 repliesReply