1. Some excellent extended responses

2. Evaluate the use of a jury in a civil case
Evaluate the use of a jury in a civil case. Do you agree with the statement that the use of juries in civil cases should be abolished? Justify your answer. (10 marks)

3. Evaluate =strengths+weaknesses+conclusion the use of a jury in a civil case = language has to be adjusted to only refer to civil terms Do you agree requires a statement and contention with the statement that the use of juries in civil cases should be abolished = KEY WORD FOR LINK Justify your answer = back it up (10 marks)

4. Introductions
“I do think that the jury system should be abolished in Victoria for civil cases, as essentially their weaknesses outweigh their strengths” direct and clear “Juries are useful in a civil case to an extent and should not be abolished as they represent a cross-section of society, are independent from the politics of courts, and ensure the community is involved in the court system. Despite some varying factors, the positives outweigh the negatives” carefully considered “I agree that the use of civil juries should be abolished” presents contention immediately “The right to trial by jury has been maintained in Victoria in most civil matters because they ensure an effective legal system and give the community the opportunity to be a part of the legal system and represent their views in court. Therefore the use of civil juries should not be abolished” nicely expressed

5. Links
“ this makes our legal system more effective as it allows for a fair and unbiased hearing, an element that would not be promoted is there was no option for trial by jury” “Without a jury in civil cases, this could be compromised” “this is a weakness of a jury in a civil case and a strong reason for why they should be abolished” “whilst they do not always represent a cross-section, they do so more than the judge which is why they should not be abolished”

6. Links
“the abolition of juries in civil trials would not greatly impact on the legal system” ‘This encourages the abolition of juries” “Whilst this problem exists… this is not a reason for the use of a jury in civil trials to be abolished” “As there are 6 individual jurors as opposed to one judge, there is a smaller probability for the outcome to be biased increasing the usefulness of a jury in civil cases meaning they should not be abolished” REMEMBER! Links are often the difference between a 4-6 mark response and a 7-10 mark response

7. Conclusions
“Ultimately, despite the weaknesses of juries within the civil courts in relation to their effectiveness, they are still more useful than not and shouldn’t be abolished as they are by choice, meaning that they should still be available if either the plaintiff or defendant wants them” “civil juries should be abolished due to prejudice, use of time and an unfair distribution of damages. Whereas a judge can provide a much better alternative to overcome these limitations of civil juries” “Therefore whilst the use of juries in civil cases can be limited and at times ineffective, it is mostly effective in taking into account all factors when deciding liability and preventing bias. Therefore civil juries should not be abolished but perhaps instead reformed to make them more representative.” “In conclusion, the requirement of a jury in a civil case is unquestionable. It must be noted that juries in civil cases are optional and to abolish them completely would simply be unreasonable. In order to achieve equality between civil litigants in the best way possible, the legal system must continue to provide this option”