Assessment
Course assessment structure, resources, and submission details.
Rubric for LAW201 and LLM521
Approach
20%
20%
How the student approaches the task: understanding of the disciplinary context, identification of role (mitigation vs aggravation), appropriate framing of submissions within the sanctioning process.
| Band | Mark | Descriptor |
|---|---|---|
| High Distinction | 85–100 | Demonstrates a sophisticated and nuanced understanding of the disciplinary context and the sanctioning process. The submission is framed precisely within the role assigned (mitigation or aggravation) and reflects a clear strategic approach to the task from the outset. |
| Distinction | 75–84 | Demonstrates a strong understanding of the disciplinary context. The role is clearly identified and the submission is well-framed within the sanctioning process, though it may lack the strategic sophistication of a higher band. |
| Credit | 65–74 | Demonstrates a sound understanding of the task and the disciplinary context. The role is identified, but the framing within the sanctioning process may be somewhat generic or underdeveloped. |
| Pass | 50–64 | Demonstrates a basic understanding of the task. The disciplinary context is acknowledged, but the submission may conflate mitigation with defence, or may not clearly situate the submission within the sanctioning stage. |
| Fail | 0–49 | Does not demonstrate an adequate understanding of the task or the disciplinary context. The submission may treat the exercise as a liability argument rather than a sanctioning submission, or may fail to identify the assigned role. |
Substance
50%
50%
The quality and depth of legal argument: identification and application of relevant mitigating or aggravating factors, engagement with the scenario materials and Code of Conduct, use of analogous cases and legal principles, persuasiveness of the submission.
| Band | Mark | Descriptor |
|---|---|---|
| High Distinction | 85–100 | Identifies and develops a comprehensive range of relevant mitigating or aggravating factors with depth and precision. Engages critically with the scenario materials, the Code of Conduct, and analogous cases or legal principles. The argument is highly persuasive, well-supported, and demonstrates independent legal thinking. |
| Distinction | 75–84 | Identifies and develops most relevant factors with good depth. Engages effectively with the scenario materials and Code of Conduct, drawing on some analogous cases or principles. The argument is persuasive and well-supported, though it may lack the breadth or originality of a higher band. |
| Credit | 65–74 | Identifies key mitigating or aggravating factors and develops them with reasonable depth. Engages with the scenario materials and Code of Conduct but may rely too heavily on the provided materials without independent research. The argument is sound but may lack persuasive force in places. |
| Pass | 50–64 | Identifies some relevant factors but development is superficial or uneven. Engagement with the scenario materials may be limited or descriptive rather than analytical. The argument is present but may lack coherence or persuasive structure. |
| Fail | 0–49 | Fails to identify relevant mitigating or aggravating factors, or identifies them but does not develop them in any meaningful way. Little or no engagement with the scenario materials or Code of Conduct. The submission does not present a coherent legal argument. |
Execution
30%
30%
Quality of writing, structure, referencing (AGLC4), professional presentation, coherent flow of argument, appropriate register and tone for a legal submission.
| Band | Mark | Descriptor |
|---|---|---|
| High Distinction | 85–100 | Exceptionally well-written, structured, and presented. The submission reads as a professional legal document with a logical and compelling flow of argument. AGLC4 referencing is accurate and consistent throughout. The register and tone are appropriate for a formal legal submission. |
| Distinction | 75–84 | Well-written and clearly structured with a coherent flow. Referencing is largely accurate with only minor inconsistencies. Tone and register are appropriate. The submission is professionally presented. |
| Credit | 65–74 | Competently written with a clear structure, though the flow of argument may be uneven in places. Referencing is generally adequate but may contain some errors. Tone is mostly appropriate. |
| Pass | 50–64 | Adequately written but may contain errors in grammar, syntax, or expression that affect clarity. Structure may be loose or difficult to follow. Referencing contains noticeable errors or inconsistencies. Tone may be informal or inconsistent. |
| Fail | 0–49 | Poorly written with significant errors that impede comprehension. Structure is absent or incoherent. Referencing is inadequate, absent, or does not follow AGLC4. Tone and register are inappropriate for a legal submission. |
Word Count (Deduction Only)
PenaltyExceeding the strict word limit (LAW201: 2,000 / LLM521: 2,500) will result in a mark deduction on the Execution criterion. No percentage leeway applies. The word count includes footnotes but excludes the bibliography and AI Use Statement.
| Excess | Deduction |
|---|---|
| 1–100 words over | 1 mark deducted from Execution |
| 101–250 words over | 3 marks deducted from Execution |
| 251–500 words over | 5 marks deducted from Execution |
| 500+ words over | 10 marks deducted from Execution |