Case analysis rubric 案例分析评分标准
|
Criteria 标准 |
Excellent 非常好 |
Good/Very Good 好/非常好 |
Satisfactory 满意 |
Not Shown/Unsatisfactory 未显示/不满意 |
Marks 标志着 |
|
Exposition 博览会
|
6 to > 5 marks
• Account of facts succinct, includes all relevant facts, omits irrelevant information • Legal issues identified and stated precisely • Concise and accurate explanation of the court’s reasoning and authorities that are central to its reasoning. Where appropriate will refer to the form of reasoning in which the court engages, e.g. distinguishing, analogy etc. • Succinct, clear, and accurate statement of ratio. |
5 to > 3 marks
• Includes all material facts but might also include some irrelevant information. • Legal issues identified and stated clearly. • Provides an accurate and succinct account of the court’s reasoning but omits some significant detail, or fails to explain the significance of every authority referred to in the summary of reasoning. • narrative explanation of the court’s reasoning but might omit some relevant detail • Clear statement of ratio(s) |
3 to > 1 marks
• Provides an account of the facts that includes most of the material facts but also includes a significant amount of irrelevant information. • Legal issue identified but lacks precision. • Provides a narrative explanation of the court’s • Provides a statement of the ratio(s), but it is lacks precision and/or clarity |
1 to > 0 marks
• Account of facts very brief and leaves out important information. • Legal issue not identified or incorrectly identified. • Summary of reasoning brief and disjointed. Some of the cases, legislation, reports etc referred to by the court might be mentioned but significance not explained • Ratio(s) not stated • 比率未说明 |
6 |
|
Critical Analysis 批判性分析 |
5 to > 4 marks • Demonstrates sophisticated understanding of the legal and/or social/moral/political implications of the court’s decision. • Provides thorough analysis of one or more of these issues. |
4 to > 3 marks • Provides critical analysis of the social and/or legal implications of the court’s decision, but these might be the more obvious implications. • The analysis demonstrates a sound understanding of the issue(s) but the analysis lacks sophistication and nuance |
3 to > 1 marks • Attempts to evaluate the court’s decision in terms of its social or legal implications. • Demonstrates some insight but the analysis is somewhat superficial, and ideas are underdeveloped. |
1 to > 0 mark • Offers no critical analysis or makes a brief reference (one or two sentences) to possible social or legal implications/consequences of the court’s decision (one or two sentences) without further elaboration. • Demonstrates little or no understanding/awareness of the implications of the decision. |
5 |
|
Legal Writing Range 法律写作范围
|
5 to > 4 marks • Has a logical and clear structure. Good use of headings. • Correct use of grammar throughout. • Does not contain long and complex sentences. Uses simple language. Good use of paragraphs to indicate next step in analysis or exposition. • Ideas, propositions, and authorities always accompanied by adequate explanation and contextual information |
4 to > 3 marks • Has a logical and clear structure. Good use of headings. • Use of grammar generally good, but there might be a few minor errors. • Some sentences might be complex and deal with more than one point. Some paragraphs might be length and deal with numerous issues. • Ideas, propositions, and authorities will generally be accompanied by adequate explanation and contextual information. But lack of elaboration results in occasional ambiguity |
3 to > 1 marks • Has a discernible structure indicated by headings but is somewhat disorganised/does not follow logical order. Headings that are used might be confusing and/or uninformative; the headings may not reflect the content (eg, a heading of analysis may only contain more descriptive material) • The essay is generally intelligible but there are parts in which poor use of language results in ambiguity or otherwise makes it difficult to understand the idea or point that is being conveyed; • Ideas, propositions, and authorities will often not be accompanied by adequate explanation and contextual information |
1 to > 0 marks • Has no discernible structure. • The text includes a significant number of sentences that are incomplete and/or contain errors that make them difficult to understand. • Legal propositions - other than those that are common knowledge – not supported by relevant authority; cases referred to not accompanied by any explanation of their significance. Ideas and propositions introduced but explained – will take the form of ‘bare assertions’ |
5 |
|
Referencing and Citation 参考文献和引用 |
4 to > 3 marks • Citations and footnotes provided for all cases, legislation, reports, articles etc referred to in both the text and footnotes. Citations and referencing practice always conform to AGLC • Pinpoint references provided in support of all aspects of analysis of the judgment • Includes accurate and comprehensive bibliography. |
3 to > 1 marks • Citations and footnotes will be provided for most cases, legislation, reports, articles etc referred to both in the text of the case analysis or footnotes. Citations and referencing practice conform to AGLC but not consistently. • Pinpoint references accompany most of the analysis of the judgment • Includes largely accurate bibliography. |
1 to > 0 marks • Citations and footnotes will be provided for some but not all cases, legislation, reports, articles etc referred to both in the text of the case analysis or footnotes. Citations and referencing practice does not conform to AGLC. • Some pinpoint references supporting analysis of the judgment. • Includes bibliography, but has several flaws in that it does not accord with many AGLC criteria and/or some material referred to in the case analysis missing. |
0 marks 0 分 • Text will only contain case names, titles of Acts, reports, and legislation for which full citations are not provided in footnotes. • Some passages might will be reproduced verbatim from other sources without required attribution. • Discussion of aspects of the case, e.g. ratio and/or court’s reasoning not accompanied by pinpoint references to relevant part of judgment. • No bibliography • 无参考书目 |
4 |