LLB301 Sem 1 2022 Assignment 1 feedback General feedback Students overall did reasonably well in this assessment. The average mark was a Credit. The task of describing what is a difficult area of law into plain English is clearly a tricky one. I did not come across any student who failed to attempt to explain these matters in everyday English. What distinguished the best answers from the others was how successful they were in making the answer intelligible for a non-lawyer. This isn't a skill that is easy or that you can learn overnight. It is something that you have to practice. Have a look at the example answers provided, and think about how you could have made your writing easier to follow for a non-lawyer. Most students identified the two main issues: that there was at least an interruption in the use of the fishing traps, and that the use of the ochre only commenced in 1974. Each of these facts is a potential barrier to a successful claim. To do well in this assignment it was necessary to identify both of these issues, which were arguably very plain on the facts. There was one big issue in relation to communication to non-lawyers that is worth emphasising. Most students simply used the expression 'sovereignty' as shorthand for 'the assertion of British sovereignty over what is now Australia'. This shorthand is commonly used in legal texts about native title. However, without explanation it would be confusing to a non-lawyer, so it needed explaining. A phrase like 'British settlement of Australia' or 'British/European settlement/colonisation' would have been reasonably understandable. Without that detail, 'sovereignty' could easily mean when the Indigenous group had sovereignty, which is obviously a completely different thing (in fact, some students erroneously thought this, showing how ambiguous the expression was). In relation to structure, most of the best answers chose to deal with all aspects of the fish traps claim, followed by all aspects of the ochre claim. This wasn't the 'right' way, and some students who didn't do this still did quite well. It just happens that for this question, that structure worked better. The reason for this is that the first and second elements in s223 Native Title Act 1993 relate to each other, indeed are overlapping to some extent. Therefore, talking about element one for fish traps, then element one for ochre, then element two for fish traps, then element two for ochre, was somewhat disjointed. Most students followed instructions in relation to not discussing extinguishment, and in the manner in which the client should be addressed, and how cases could be cited. It was a large error to fail to follow one of those clear instructions. Answer* *Note that this answer contains more detail than what was possible within 600 words, and more detail than what was necessary to get perfect marks. I include the detail for your knowledge and understanding A successful claim of native title requires the group to show the following three