HSC 2026 published Aug 2026

Legal Studies question styles to look out for

The question styles to have ready — each linked to its evidence and to a question in the practice paper.

Built by a six-model AI panel and backtested against the hidden 2025 papers — how we did it.

About the 2026 exam & how this page was built

Built from a six-model AI analysis of every HSC Legal Studies paper, marking guideline and marking-centre feedback report since 2019 — using the same method we backtested against the real 2025 Chemistry and Maths Ext 1 papers before publishing. One thing to settle up front: the current (2009) syllabus continues — 2026 is NOT a final syllabus year, so expect evolution, not a clearance sale. These are styles to prepare for, not guarantees: examiners keep the skill and twist the format, so practise the skill chain, not a memorised essay.

Section I · 1 mark 6 of 6 models expect this

Multiple choice built from the marking centre's greatest hits

The Section I engine every model predicts: short hypothetical scenarios and "which row of the table is correct?" items whose distractors encode the exact concept pairs the marking centre...

Why we expect this

II Part A · 6–7 marks 6 of 6 models expect this

The human rights 7-marker — evaluation is back

All six models predict the Part A closer as a 6–7 mark evaluate/assess of the effectiveness of responses to human rights with a mandatory contemporary issue or example — restoring...

Try it → Q23 Why we expect this

Section I · 1–2 marks 5 of 6 models expect this

Young-offender scenario MC: doli incapax / rights when questioned

A 10–13-year-old suspect scenario testing the rebuttable presumption of doli incapax (prosecution must prove the child knew the act was seriously wrong), the support-person requirement...

Try it → Q4 Why we expect this

On this page

1. The law reform essay stem — across whichever options you do
2. The Crime 15-marker — investigation is the gap
3. The human rights 7-marker — evaluation is back
4. The Charter of Rights question finally lands
5. Multiple choice built from the marking centre's greatest hits
Where to spend study time
Practice paper
Check our working

The big five (have these cold)

1. The law reform essay stem — across whichever options you do

What it looks like: one of your two 25-mark alternatives reads something like "Assess the role of law reform in achieving just outcomes for [consumers / family members / those seeking shelter / workers / the global environment / world order], referring to at least ONE contemporary issue."
Why we expect it: five of six models converge here — the strongest call on the paper. The options rotate through the themes-and-challenges rows (non-compliance and changing values both ran in 2025), and role of law reform is the last row unused as an options frame since 2019.
The traps markers flag (2019, 2021, 2023, 2025): writing a historical narrative of how the law changed instead of judging whether reform achieved just outcomes; recycling a memorised 2025-style "compliance" or "values" essay under a new heading; citing dated examples when the stem is begging for post-2023 reforms.
Practise: for each of your two options, build a law-reform case study from the last three years (see the option notes below), and write one paragraph that makes a judgement about the reform in its first sentence — not its last.

Try it → Q25(b) Try it → Q26(b) 5 of 6 models expect this — see the evidence

2. The Crime 15-marker — investigation is the gap

What it looks like: Question 24, 15 marks, along the lines of "To what extent does the criminal investigation process balance the rights of suspects with community safety?" — police powers, warrants, detention limits, right to silence, bail and remand — probably with a rider naming a second element ("In your answer, refer to both … and …").
Why we expect it: four of six models. Since 2019 the 15-marker has cycled post-sentencing, trial (twice), prevention, law reform, courts, and 2025's transnational-plus-domestic pairing. Investigation is the only core process never to anchor it.
The traps (2019, 2022, 2024, 2025): importing content from the wrong syllabus slot (VIS and sentencing material into an investigation answer); confusing bail with remand; answering only one limb of a "both X and Y" rider — the marking guidelines drop AND to AND/OR one band down, and one-sided answers cap there.
Also live: a young-offenders 15-marker (never anchored this era — three models call it the challenger, and the raise-the-age debate keeps it current) and a sentencing balance-of-rights fallback. Prepare investigation deeply and young offenders as your second string.

Try it → Q24 4 of 6 models expect this — see the evidence

3. The human rights 7-marker — evaluation is back

What it looks like: the Part A closer, 6–7 marks: evaluate the effectiveness of responses to human rights, with a mandatory contemporary issue or example. All six models predict it; they split on whether the frame is non-legal responses (NGOs, media), international responses against state sovereignty, or a legal-versus-non-legal comparison — so prepare all three through one well-drilled issue (refugees, trafficking or arbitrary detention).
The traps (2019, 2021, 2023, 2025): describing your issue instead of judging the responses to it; conflating promotion, protection and enforcement (the single most re-flagged confusion in the subject); leaning on the UDHR alone; bolting a judgement onto the end instead of sustaining it.
Practise: write the 7-marker in 12 minutes with a criteria-first opening sentence ("Legal responses to X are only partially effective because…").

Try it → Q23 6 of 6 models expect this — see the evidence

4. The Charter of Rights question finally lands

What it looks like: the middle Part A item (4–6 marks): discuss the arguments for and against a Charter of Rights for Australia.
Why we expect it: four models. It's an explicit "learn to" point that has appeared only as multiple choice (2020, 2022, 2025) and never as a written item since at least 2019 — repeated MC outings are how this committee warms a topic up. Know both sides: justiciable rights and certainty versus parliamentary sovereignty and judicial power; the current constitutional/statutory/common-law patchwork; one comparison jurisdiction.
Related opener: the 2–3 mark rotation question has used suffrage, ICCPR, environmental rights, education, self-determination and peace rights — the only rows left are trade unionism/labour rights and abolition of slavery (four models). Prepare a development-over-time answer naming an ILO convention or the Slavery Convention and ICESCR — tracing change, not defining the right.

Try it → Q22 4 of 6 models expect this — see the evidence

5. Multiple choice built from the marking centre's greatest hits

What it looks like: scenario stems and "which row of the table is correct?" items whose wrong answers are precisely the confusions flagged in feedback since 2019.
Why we expect it: all six models, and it's the highest-probability call in the whole analysis. The pairs to drill until they're reflexive:

bail vs remand vs parole (and parole vs continued vs preventative detention)

extradition vs deportation

ICJ vs ICC — who tries individuals, complementarity, when the home state's courts act first

IGO vs NGO; promotion vs protection vs enforcement

DPP vs police prosecutor; Legal Aid vs Public Defender

aggravating vs mitigating in a fact scenario; purposes of punishment matched to a penalty

doli incapax — a 10–13-year-old can be charged; the prosecution must rebut the presumption by proving the child knew the act was seriously wrong; support person rules
Practise: make a two-column card for each pair. Fifteen of the twenty MC marks are Crime; five are Human Rights.

6 of 6 models expect this — see the evidence

Option-by-option: where the panel points

Each option gets two 25-mark alternatives; expect one to be the law-reform stem above and one option-specific. The panel's option calls, with the recent reforms they expect top answers to cite (verify currency before the exam — the law here moves fast):

Family — domestic and family violence, with the NSW coercive control offence (in force since July 2024) as the intended headline example, plus ADVO reforms and the Family Law Amendment Act 2023 parenting changes. Watch: recognition of same-sex relationships is the one mandated issue never directly set.
Workplace — safety returns after six years rested: WHS Act duties, SafeWork NSW enforcement, the NSW industrial manslaughter offence, psychosocial hazard regulation. Law-reform evidence: criminalised wage theft, right to disconnect, gig-economy protections.
Consumers — law reform around credit and the digital economy: BNPL brought under the Credit Act, scams legislation, unfair contract terms; or an ACCC/NCAT redress-effectiveness stem.
Shelter — the 2024–25 NSW rental reforms (no-grounds evictions abolished) are the model law-reform case study. Watch: a marginal-tenures question (boarders and lodgers, residential parks, aged care) — markers have demanded breadth beyond mainstream tenancy every year since 2019.
World Order — "the success of global cooperation", the one mandated issue never centred; Ukraine- and Gaza-era ICJ/ICC action is the expected evidence. Watch: the never-set negotiation/persuasion/force row.
Global Environmental Protection — Australia's responses to international initiatives (Climate Change Act 2022, safeguard mechanism, EPBC reform) — plus the 2025 ICJ climate advisory opinion as the new landmark "court" example. Watch: a stem forcing you to apply the ESD principles rather than name them.

Where to spend less time

Nothing in Legal Studies truly rests — every option is printed every year and both core parts always appear. But at extended-response level the panel is confident international crime is rested after anchoring the 2025 15-marker (it keeps its one or two MC items — hold the ICC/extradition distinctions), and a third sentencing-led 15-marker in eight years would break the rotation. Know them; don't build your revision around them.

The honest fine print

We backtested this exact method by having the panel predict the real 2025 Chemistry and Maths Ext 1 papers blind, then scoring against the actual papers. The good news: every high-confidence topic call landed (37/37 across the panel). The sobering news: at question level, strict grading gave weighted hit rates of roughly 0.44–0.60 — examiners inverted flagship formats, migrated big questions into multiple choice, and broke two long streaks; and on Maths Ext 1 the whole panel over-predicted how widely the big marks would spread. Treat the probabilities above the same way: the skill chains — the concept pairs, the sustained-judgement essay craft, the law-reform case studies — are the durable prediction. The exact question wording is not.

Want to check our working? every call above, with each model's own prediction

Scenario MC battery built on flagged paired-concept confusions 6 of 6 models expect this

legal-q1-mc-paired-concept-traps Section I 1 marks mid range consensus 0.69

The Section I engine every model predicts: short hypothetical scenarios and "which row of the table is correct?" items whose distractors encode the exact concept pairs the marking centre has flagged since 2019 — bail/parole, extradition/deportation, continued/preventative detention, ICJ/ICC (individuals vs states, complementarity), IGO/NGO, promotion/protection/enforcement, DPP/police prosecutor, Legal Aid/Public Defender, aggravating/mitigating factors, purposes of punishment matched to a penalty. Expect 2–3 table-format items (including a parties-to-a-crime or institution-and-function row-match) and six-plus scenario stems.

Each model's own prediction

Claude Fable 5: 3-4 police-powers items + table formats, parties-to-crime permutation (p 0.80-0.85)
Claude Opus 5: row-match personnel table (p 0.45), post-sentencing distinction item (p 0.55), police-powers scenario (p 0.72)
GPT-5.6 Sol: post-sentencing distinction (p 0.69), warrant/consent scenario (p 0.68), burden/standard trial scenario (p 0.72)
Gemini 3.1 Pro: penalty-purpose identification (p 0.90), jurisdiction scenario (p 0.80)
Grok 4.6: aggravating/mitigating scenario (p 0.62), penalty-purpose/post-sentence match (p 0.55), warrant scenario (p 0.55)
DeepSeek V4: VIS timing item (p 0.55), ICO rehabilitation purpose (p 0.60), bail/remand scenario (p 0.55)

Marker-feedback lineage: Marking feedback 2019 (bail/parole, extradition/deportation, continued/preventative), 2022–2023 (ICJ/ICC), 2024–2025 mapping grids (table and hypothetical formats rising)

Young-offender scenario MC: doli incapax / rights when questioned 5 of 6 models expect this

legal-q2-mc-doli-incapax-young-offender Section I 1–2 marks mid range consensus 0.65

A 10–13-year-old suspect scenario testing the rebuttable presumption of doli incapax (prosecution must prove the child knew the act was seriously wrong), the support-person requirement when questioned, or Children's Court jurisdiction limits. Distractors assert the child cannot be charged at all, that a parent must attend, or that a lawyer is mandatory. Corpus-grounded: doli incapax appears in the pack (2019 Q16, 2025 Q5 lineage).

Each model's own prediction

Claude Fable 5: doli incapax reprise + Children's Court exception (p 0.85)
Claude Opus 5: doli incapax / support-person cluster (p 0.68)
GPT-5.6 Sol: age/doli/support-person scenario (p 0.66)
Grok 4.6: 11- or 13-year-old scenario, rebuttable presumption (p 0.58)
DeepSeek V4: 12-year-old, what prosecution must prove re mens rea (p 0.50)

Marker-feedback lineage: 2021/2022 feedback on Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act rights; young offenders in MC every year 2019–2025

In the practice paper: Q4

Role-of-law-reform theme stem across the Section III options 5 of 6 models expect this

legal-q3-options-law-reform-stem Section III 25 marks discriminator consensus 0.55

The panel's strongest Section III convergence: after 2025 used non-compliance and changing-values common stems, the role of law reform is the last themes-and-challenges row unused as an options frame since 2019. Five models predict a law-reform stem — most as the uniform alternative worded identically across all seven options ("Assess the role of law reform in achieving just outcomes for [subject], referring to at least ONE contemporary issue"), gemini as option-specific law-reform questions. The stem is built to punish re-labelled 2025 compliance/values templates and to reward post-2023 reforms.

Each model's own prediction

Claude Fable 5: law-reform alternative in family/workplace/consumers/shelter (p 0.35 each; structural p 0.55)
Claude Opus 5: uniform 'assess the role of law reform' stem across Q25-31 (structural p 0.70; per-option p 0.32)
GPT-5.6 Sol: law-reform alternatives in consumers (p 0.43) and family (p 0.42)
Gemini 3.1 Pro: law reform as the part (a) theme, gig-economy workplace law reform (p 0.60)
Grok 4.6: common (b) law-reform stem + at least one contemporary issue (p 0.46-0.50 per option; structural p 0.45)

Marker-feedback lineage: 2019 (b)-stem feedback across options (narrative instead of judgement); 2025 feedback penalising pre-prepared essays; theme rotation 2020–2025

In the practice paper: Q25(b) Q26(b) Q27(b) Q29(b) Q30(b) Q31(b)

Human rights 7-mark closer: evaluate responses to a contemporary issue 6 of 6 models expect this

legal-q4-hr-7mark-contemporary-closer Section II Part A 6–7 marks discriminator consensus 0.52

All six models predict the Part A closer as a 6–7 mark evaluate/assess of the effectiveness of responses to human rights with a mandatory contemporary issue or example — restoring judgement after 2025's "explain" closer. Models split on the frame: non-legal responses (NGOs/media — the standing gap after 2025 confined Q23 to legal measures), international responses vs state sovereignty (longest-rested frame, last 2019–2020), or a legal-and-non-legal comparison. Expected issues: refugees, human trafficking, arbitrary detention.

Each model's own prediction

Claude Fable 5: international responses + state sovereignty frame, ONE contemporary issue (p 0.40)
Claude Opus 5: legal and non-legal responses, ONE contemporary issue (p 0.50)
GPT-5.6 Sol: Australian + international legal measures on a nominated issue (p 0.61)
Gemini 3.1 Pro: non-legal response (NGO or media) assessment (p 0.65)
Grok 4.6: legal and non-legal responses to refugees/trafficking/detention (p 0.52)
DeepSeek V4: Australian legal measures + AHRC + 2023-25 case (p 0.45)

Marker-feedback lineage: Marking feedback 2019 Q23, 2021 Q24, 2023 Q24, 2025 Q23 (description instead of evaluation; promotion/protection/enforcement conflation)

In the practice paper: Q23

Crime 15-marker: criminal investigation process balancing rights and community interests 4 of 6 models expect this

legal-q5-er-investigation-rights Section II Part B 15 marks discriminator consensus 0.53

The panel's leading extended-response call: investigation is the only core Crime process never to anchor the 15-marker in 2019–2025 (post-sentencing 2019, trial 2020/2024, prevention 2021, law reform 2022, courts/compliance 2023, transnational+domestic 2025). Expected form: "To what extent does the criminal investigation process balance the rights of suspects/individuals with community safety?" spanning police powers, search warrants, detention limits, right to silence, bail/remand — likely with a dual-scope rider continuing the 2024–2025 "refer to both X and Y" habit. LEPRA is the expected statutory anchor for three models — external-knowledge anchor (verify currency before publication): the Act is real (Law Enforcement (Powers and Responsibilities) Act 2002 (NSW)) but is not named in the document pack.

Each model's own prediction

Claude Fable 5: dissents toward a discretion-themed ER instead (p 0.20; investigation 'never solely anchored')
Claude Opus 5: dissents toward discretion (p 0.28); investigation folded into its discretion frame
GPT-5.6 Sol: investigation balancing community safety and suspects' rights (p 0.58; bold call)
Gemini 3.1 Pro: police powers (LEPRA) and bail laws balance (p 0.60)
Grok 4.6: search/detention/interrogation/bail vs community safety, LEPRA + one case (p 0.48; bold call)
DeepSeek V4: investigation and trial process vs police powers and individual rights, LEPRA (p 0.45)

Marker-feedback lineage: 2019 Q24 / 2022 Q25 feedback (wrong-slot content); 2024–2025 dual-scope riders; 2025 feedback punishing one-sided coverage

Pending human verification

This panel cites real legislation, cases or statistics from model knowledge rather than the NESA evidence pack. We're checking each is current and correctly named before treating it as fact.

In the practice paper: Q24

Part A opener: labour rights or abolition of slavery — the last unused rotation rows 4 of 6 models expect this

legal-q6-hr-labour-slavery-opener Section II Part A 2–3 marks routine consensus 0.44

Four models track the developing-recognition rotation (suffrage 2019, ICCPR 2020, environmental 2021, education 2023, self-determination 2024, peace 2025) and predict the 2–3 mark opener finally lands on trade unionism and labour rights or the abolition of slavery — the only rows never used. Expects a development-over-time answer: C19 movements through ILO conventions / Slavery Convention to ICESCR (both corpus-grounded: ILO and ICESCR appear in the pack) and a domestic marker such as the Fair Work Act.

Each model's own prediction

Claude Fable 5: labour rights / slavery as the only rows left (p 0.35)
Claude Opus 5: slavery or labour rights traced through UDHR/ICESCR/ILO (p 0.42)
Grok 4.6: labour or slavery development naming one treaty or statute (p 0.42)
DeepSeek V4: labour rights via ILO Convention No. 87 + UDHR Art 23 (p 0.55)

Marker-feedback lineage: 2019 Q21 / 2023 Q22 feedback: development over time, not definitions

In the practice paper: Q21

Charter of Rights for Australia graduates from MC to a written item 4 of 6 models expect this

legal-q7-hr-charter-of-rights Section II Part A 4–6 marks discriminator consensus 0.41

Four models call the middle Part A item (4–6 marks) as "Discuss arguments for and against a Charter of Rights for Australia" — an explicit 'students learn to' point that has appeared only as multiple choice (2020, 2022, 2025) and never as a written item in 2019–2025. The repeated MC appearances read as the committee warming it up. Expects justiciable rights vs parliamentary sovereignty, the constitutional/statutory/common-law status quo, and a comparison jurisdiction or the 1988 referendum.

Each model's own prediction

Claude Fable 5: Charter or AHRC as the theme-anchored middle item (p 0.35)
Claude Opus 5: Charter discuss, 4-6 marks (bold call p 0.30)
GPT-5.6 Sol: Charter arguments for/against, 5-6 marks (p 0.52; bold call)
Grok 4.6: Charter discuss with comparison jurisdiction (p 0.46; bold call)

Marker-feedback lineage: MC lineage 2020 Q15, 2022 Q16, 2025 Q7; 2022/2024 feedback on express/implied confusion

In the practice paper: Q22

Workplace option: safety returns as the named issue after six years 4 of 6 models expect this

legal-q8-workplace-safety-returns Section III 25 marks mid range consensus 0.39

Issue rotation (safety 2020, discrimination 2023, leave+termination 2024, themes 2025) leaves safety the longest-rested mandatory Workplace issue, and four models predict its return — as a standalone effectiveness stem or paired with a second issue. Expected evidence: WHS Act 2011 duties and SafeWork NSW enforcement (corpus-grounded: "Work Health and Safety" appears in the pack), plus the NSW industrial manslaughter offence (2024) and psychosocial-hazard regulations — external-knowledge anchors (verify currency before publication): real reforms, not named in the pack.

Each model's own prediction

Claude Fable 5: safety alternative with industrial manslaughter + psychosocial LEDs (p 0.30)
Claude Opus 5: safety + discrimination dual-issue stem (p 0.30)
GPT-5.6 Sol: safety duties/regulator/compensation evaluation (p 0.47)
Grok 4.6: law-reform (b) naming safety, WHS reforms + SafeWork prosecutions (p 0.50)

Marker-feedback lineage: 2024 Q30(b) feedback (both named issues required); 2025(a) feedback centring unsafe conditions and wage underpayment

Pending human verification

This panel cites real legislation, cases or statistics from model knowledge rather than the NESA evidence pack. We're checking each is current and correctly named before treating it as fact.

In the practice paper: Q30(a)

Family option names domestic violence with coercive control as the intended LED 2 of 6 models expect this

legal-q9-family-dv-coercive-control Section III 25 marks mid range consensus 0.50

The panel's clearest contemporary-issue/LED anchor: a Family alternative on protecting victims of domestic and family violence, written so the NSW coercive control offence is the model example. External-knowledge anchor (verify currency before publication): the offence is real (Crimes Legislation Amendment (Coercive Control) Act 2022 (NSW), commenced 1 July 2024) but "coercive control" is absent from the document pack — both models are reaching to live law, exactly what option feedback rewards. Supporting LEDs: ADVO reforms, serious-DV bail changes, Family Law Amendment Act 2023 (also absent from pack — verify).

Each model's own prediction

Claude Fable 5: law-reform frame targeting family violence, coercive control the headline (p 0.35; bold call)
Gemini 3.1 Pro: legal + non-legal responses to DV with coercive control mandated (p 0.65; bold call p 0.45)

Marker-feedback lineage: DV named as model contemporary issue in 2019 Section III feedback; last centred 2023(b); 2024 feedback on integrating current legislation

Pending human verification

This panel cites real legislation, cases or statistics from model knowledge rather than the NESA evidence pack. We're checking each is current and correctly named before treating it as fact.

In the practice paper: Q27(a)

Global options centre their one never-examined mandatory issue 3 of 6 models expect this

legal-q10-globals-unused-mandatory-issue Section III 25 marks mid range consensus 0.36

A single committee habit predicted across both globally framed options by the same three models: the option-specific alternative lands on the one mandated contemporary issue never directly centred in 2019–2025. World Order: "the success of global cooperation in achieving world order" (expects UN Charter mechanisms, sanctions coalitions, Ukraine/ Gaza-era ICJ and ICC actions — external-knowledge anchors, verify currency). Global Environmental Protection: "Australia's responses to international initiatives" (expects Climate Change Act 2022 — corpus-grounded, one pack mention — plus safeguard mechanism, EPBC reform and the 2025 ICJ climate advisory opinion — external-knowledge anchors, verify currency before publication).

Each model's own prediction

Claude Fable 5: WO cooperation (p 0.30) + GEP Australia's responses (p 0.30)
Claude Opus 5: WO cooperation (p 0.32; bold call) + GEP Australia's responses (p 0.32)
Grok 4.6: WO cooperation as the (b) issue (p 0.46) + GEP Australia's responses/barriers (p 0.47)

Marker-feedback lineage: 2019–2025 issue-rotation mapping; 2022(b) World Order feedback listing global cooperation as appropriate; 2019/2020 GEP feedback on global-vs-Australian balance

Pending human verification

This panel cites real legislation, cases or statistics from model knowledge rather than the NESA evidence pack. We're checking each is current and correctly named before treating it as fact.

In the practice paper: Q26(a) Q31(a)

Contrarian ER: young offenders anchors the 15-marker for the first time this era 3 of 6 models expect this

legal-q11-er-young-offenders Section II Part B 15 marks discriminator consensus 0.27

The named challenger to the investigation ER: young offenders is the only Crime section never to anchor the 15-marker in 2019–2025, while the raise-the-age / doli incapax debate (previewed by the 2022 stimulus) keeps it examiner-salient. Expected form: "Assess the effectiveness of the criminal justice system when dealing with young offenders", drawing on age of criminal responsibility, youth justice conferencing, Children's Court, Youth Koori Court and rising youth remand — possibly opening from a stimulus quotation as in 2022.

Each model's own prediction

Claude Fable 5: sharpest ER call of 2026 (p 0.30; bold call)
Claude Opus 5: stimulus-first raise-the-age framing (p 0.18)
Grok 4.6: main alternative if investigation is not used (p 0.34)

Marker-feedback lineage: 2022 Q25 stimulus territory and feedback; seven-year ER drought against annual MC presence

Fallback ER: sentencing/post-sentencing balancing victims, offenders and society 4 of 6 models expect this

legal-q12-er-sentencing-balance Section II Part B 15 marks discriminator consensus 0.28

The panel's third ER family: a balance-of-rights stem over sentencing and post-sentencing — "Evaluate how sentencing (including alternative methods) balances the rights of victims, offenders and society" or a post-sentencing variant on parole, continued detention and registration balancing community safety with offender liberty. Rated lower because sentencing part-anchored 2024 and post-sentencing anchored 2019, but kept alive by the victims'-role gap (never centred) and the high-discrimination parole/detention confusions.

Each model's own prediction

Claude Fable 5: victims/offenders/society balance over sentencing (p 0.25)
Claude Opus 5: sentencing + post-sentencing balance (p 0.20)
GPT-5.6 Sol: penalties and alternative sentencing achieving justice (p 0.31)
DeepSeek V4: post-sentencing considerations vs community safety (p 0.35)

Marker-feedback lineage: 2019 Q24 and 2024 Q24 feedback (weak linking to balance of interests)

Watch list — worth having ready (8)

Discretion-themed Crime ER spanning police, DPP and judicial discretion — the only themes row never used for Part B (fable 0.20, opus 0.28, both as bold calls; folds naturally into the investigation ER as a rider)
World Order alternative on political negotiation, persuasion and the use of force — a 'learn about' row never set (gpt-5.6-sol 0.46, fable 0.25, opus 0.22)
Shelter alternative on marginal tenures — boarders/lodgers, residential parks, aged care — the breadth markers have demanded since 2019 (deepseek 0.40, gpt-5.6-sol 0.38, fable 0.25, opus 0.22)
Family issue lands on recognition of same-sex relationships, the only mandated Family issue never directly targeted (opus 0.30, grok 0.48 as half of its (b) call, deepseek 0.40 within a changing-values frame)
GEP essay requiring application of ESD principles — biodiversity, inter/intragenerational equity, precautionary principle (gpt-5.6-sol 0.34, deepseek 0.40)
Part B stimulus quotation returns after resting since 2022 (opus 0.28; gemini and deepseek as trend calls; grok explicitly predicts NO stimulus)
Consumers law-reform LEDs: BNPL under the Credit Act and the Scams Prevention Framework Act 2025 (fable 0.35) — BNPL is corpus-grounded ('Buy Now' in pack), the Scams Act is an external-knowledge anchor (verify currency before publication)
Shelter law-reform LED: no-grounds eviction ban under the 2024 NSW rental reforms (fable 0.35, opus within its two-issue stem) — corpus-grounded (no-grounds and Residential Tenancies appear in the pack)

Where to spend your study time

How likely each topic is to appear this year.

Human rights: nature, promotion, contemporary issue 100% likely

Chance of a big question (4+ marks) here: 98%

Question types predicted here short answer ×16

What each model expects

DeepSeek V4: Part A will include a development-over-time item, an NGO enforcement item, and a 7-mark evaluation of Australian legal protections linked to one contemporary issue.
Claude Fable 5: Part A runs three questions (3+5+7 or 2+6+7); the 7-marker swings back to international responses or non-legal measures with a mandatory contemporary issue, after 2023-2025 all anchored domestic legal measures.
Gemini 3.1 Pro: The 7-mark Human Rights question will demand assessment of a contemporary issue via non-legal responses, continuing the 2023-2025 structural drift.
GPT-5.6 Sol: Section II Part A will retain three items, ending with a 7-mark applied response that tests enforceability rather than a descriptive account of a human rights issue.
Grok 4.6: Part A returns to three questions totalling 15 (about 3+5+7), with a Charter or incorporation middle item and a 7-mark evaluate-plus-contemporary-issue closer.
Claude Opus 5: Part A closes with a 7-mark evaluate or assess item carrying an explicit contemporary-issue requirement, pushing candidates onto non-legal responses or a legal-versus-non-legal comparison after 2025 examined legal measures alone.

Option: Family law 100% likely

Chance of a big question (4+ marks) here: 100%