LAWS8213 – Legal Concepts, Research and Writing
Assessment 3: Final Essay
T1 2024
Weighting 60% of total marks for Legal Concepts, Research and Writing
Due date 11.59pm AEST Tuesday, 23 April 2024
Submission platform
You are required to submit an electronic copy of your assignment via Turnitin.
Turnitin is software that assists in the assessment of academic integrity. Among
other things, Turnitin identifies:
• plagiarism (see discussion below)
• academic misconduct, including hidden text (e.g. hyphens) and
images.
You are allowed ONE submission only. It is your responsibility to upload the
correct document. We will only assess the document that is submitted.
Assignment format
 no coversheet or bibliography is required for this assessment
 submit as a .doc or .docx (do not submit Apple Pages)
 include text only, no images of text are permitted
 include headings and subheadings, where appropriate
 use a footnote referencing system (no intext referencing, see further below
on referencing)
 12-point font for text in body and 10-point font for footnotes in Times New
Roman, Arial or Calibri
 3cm margins
 number each page
 record the actual number of words contained in the body of the paper,
including footnotes (see the discussion about the word limit below).
Late submissions
Penalties will apply for any work submitted after the due date unless you have
obtained a formal extension prior to the date for submission (see request for
special consideration below). The penalty applied will be 5% of the
available marks for the assignment for each day or part thereof that the
assignment is late. The penalty will be capped at five days (120 hours) from the
assignment deadline, after which late work will not be accepted.
Word limit 1,200 words, no 10% leeway (not including footnotes). Make sure the
“Include footnotes in word count” box is UNCHECKED in Microsoft Word.
Word limit penalty
Penalties will apply to assignments which exceed the word limit as follows:
Exceeds by up to 10% — 10% penalty;
Exceeds by 10%+ up to 20% — 15% penalty;
Exceeds by 20%+ up to 30% — 25% penalty;
Page 2 of 5
Exceeds by more than 30% — 30% penalty.
It is acceptable to exceed the word limit to complete a sentence: i.e., a small
number of words over (less than 20 words) will not be penalised.
Legal citation
All sources referred to in the assignment must be formally cited using a
footnote referencing system (i.e., no in-text referencing) in accordance with the
Australian Guide to Legal Citation (4th ed).
Bibliography A bibliography is NOT required.
Special Consideration
Requests for an extension due to illness, misadventure, or extenuating other
circumstances beyond your control will only be considered via a formal
application for special consideration: see here. Course teaching staff cannot
give informal extensions.
Plagiarism and academic
misconduct
It is assumed that you are thoroughly familiar with the policies of UNSW Law
& Justice regarding academic misconduct and plagiarism. Ignorance of the
rules is not an acceptable defence against an allegation of academic
misconduct. See the course Moodle page for links to the relevant policies.
For this assessment task, you may use standard editing and referencing
software, such as Microsoft Office suite, but not generative AI. You are
permitted to use the full capabilities of the standard software to answer the
question.
If the use of generative AI, such as ChatGPT, is detected, it will be regarded as
serious academic misconduct and subject to the standard penalties, which may
include 00FL, suspension and exclusion.
Question
In his dissenting judgment in Dugan v Mirror Newspapers Ltd,1 Murphy J observed that:
‘The common law is law made by judges in the area left to them by constitutions and legislation; for this
reason, it is often more accurately described as judge-made or decisional law. Australian courts (especially
this Court [the High Court]) should, while taking into account the advantages of predictability, evolve the
common law so that it will be as rational, humane and just as judges can make it. The present condition of
the common law is the responsibility of the present judges. If this were not so, we would still be deciding
cases by following the decisions of medieval judges.’2
To what extent is this approach consistent with the doctrine of the separation of powers? In your answer, you
should critically discuss the above quote, and draw on a range of primary and secondary sources, including at
least one other decision of the High Court of Australia.
Your essay should follow the usual format for a legal essay that we discuss in Week 7.
Instructions
This assessment requires you to formulate a clearly expressed, evidence-based response to the question. The
marking criteria can be found on the next page.
1 (1978) 142 CLR 583.
2 Ibid 609.
Page 3 of 5
The word limit is 1,200 words, which does not include footnotes. Note that discursive footnotes are not
permitted – in other words, footnotes should only be used to provide references to source material, not for
discussion. Substantive discussion provided in a footnote will be included in the word count.
Please also note that penalties apply for late submission and for excess words (for more information, see UNSW
Law & Justice Assessment Procedure and Student Information, available under the ‘Assessment’ section on
Moodle, and the instructions above). These penalties are strictly applied, so you must ensure that you leave
yourself sufficient time to research, write and edit your paper.
Marking Criteria
• Argument and topic definition: setting out the scope of your paper in response to the question, and
how your arguments will support your overall proposition.
• Critical thinking, analysis and originality: the ability to reflect critically and originally about the
issues raised by the question, and provide a clear and consistent argument in response to the question.
• Writing style and expression: professional, clear and easy to read writing, which persuasively and
concisely responds to the question.
• Formal presentation and structure: the extent to which your paper presents a coherent narrative
with a clear structure, with effective use of headings and paragraphs. The presentation and structure
should conform to the typical format for a legal essay.
• Citation and referencing: all sources acknowledged, with correct and consistent citation in
accordance with AGLC4.
• Compliance with formal requirements: see the formal requirements in the table on pages 1 and 2 of
these instructions.
You can see further details on the marking criteria in the table on the next page. Marking Criterion High Distinction (85%>) Distinction (75%>) Credit (65%>) Pass (50%>) Fail (<50%)
Argument and
topic definition
Outstanding explanation
of scope of paper; Clear
and concise explanation of
main proposition and how
that proposition will be
argued and supported with
evidence; Coherent flow
of arguments, supported
with a sophisticated
integration of the
evidence; Sound
conclusion to paper’s
proposition, as well as
conclusions to the
individual sections
throughout the paper,
demonstrating support for
the main proposition.
Very good explanation
of scope to paper; Very
good explanation of
main proposition and
how that proposition
will be argued and
supported with
evidence; Coherent
flow of arguments,
supported with a solid
integration of the
evidence; Clear
conclusion to paper’s
proposition, and firm
understanding of how
each argument relates
to the main
proposition.
Good explanation of
scope to paper; Good
explanation of main
proposition and how
that proposition will be
argued and supported
with evidence;
Coherent flow of
arguments by reference
to evidence, but
lacking in clarity and
illustration by
reference to the
evidence; Generally
clear conclusion to
paper’s proposition,
demonstrating a solid
understanding of how
each argument relates
to the main
proposition, but
lacking in clarity of
expression at times.
Explanation of scope to
paper, but does not
provide the reader with
a clear indication of its
limits or lacks clarity
of expression;
Explanation of main
proposition, by
reference to the main
arguments; Steps
through arguments
with clear propositions
and by reference to the
research and evidence,
but lacks clarity or
tangential relevance in
sources relied on;
Conclusion to overall
argument lacks clarity.
Poor explanation of
scope of paper; Weak
exploration of
arguments in support,
with limited or no
logical connection
between the main
propositions, key
arguments, and
evidence; Poor
integration of
evidence into
arguments; Poor or
no conclusion.
Critical thinking,
analysis and
originality
Outstanding consideration
of contrary positions and
different perspectives;
Demonstrates a very strong
ability to exercise
judgment and evaluate the
Very good
consideration of
contrary positions and
different perspectives;
Demonstrates a strong
ability to exercise
Good consideration of
contrary positions and
different perspectives;
Demonstrates an ability
to exercise judgment
and evaluate the
Consideration of some
contrary positions and
different perspectives;
Demonstrates ability to
exercise judgment and
evaluate the relative
No consideration of
contrary positions and
different perspectives;
Does not demonstrate
ability to weigh sources
by evaluation and
Marking Criterion High Distinction (85%>) Distinction (75%>) Credit (65%>) Pass (50%>) Fail (<50%)
relative strength of
sources; Engages strongly
with the evidence and
demonstrates a very high
level of independent
thought.
judgment and evaluate
the relative strength of
sources; Engages with
the evidence and
demonstrates a high
level of independent
thought.
relative strength of
sources, though
perhaps is weak at
times; Engages with
the evidence and
demonstrates some
independent thought.
strength of sources but
the analysis is at times
unclear or lacks clarity;
Engages with the
evidence but
demonstrates limited
independent thought.
judgment; Barely
engages with the
evidence and
demonstrates limited
independent thought
Writing style and
expression
Clear and concise
expression, with few
minor or no errors.
Clear expression,
perhaps with some
minor flaws with
respect to precision.
Writing is generally
clear, but may contain
frequent, minor errors
in expression, or lack
precision.
Writing can generally
be understood, but
contains many errors;
Writing is not direct or
clear.
Significant errors in
written expression;
Poor grammar; Writing
lacks clarity.
Formal
presentation and
structure
Well-presented paper with
appropriate use of
headings; Clear structure
to paper, drawing sound
conclusions on each
discrete argument.
Well-presented paper
with appropriate use of
headings.
Minor errors in
presentation; Some
lack of clarity in
structure, such as
lengthy paragraphs or
sentences.
Frequent errors in
presentation.
Poorly presented paper
which is difficult to
follow.
Citation and
referencing
Complies with AGLC4,
with only the most minor,
inconsequential errors.
Generally complies
with AGLC4, but
perhaps with minor
errors.
Referencing generally
consistent, but not
AGLC4 compliant,
perhaps with frequent
minor errors.
Frequent errors in
referencing and
AGLC4 compliance.
Significant referencing
errors.