I'm doing a criminal moot. I'm the junior respondent. I'm struggling with my submissions.
The ground of appeal I'm appointed to is: The decision in R v Barnes 2005 is restricted to cases concerning injury sustained during regulated sporting matches.
I'm doing the exact same and I'm really struggling too.
Could you use Konzani, it deals with transmitted disease however but the decision in r v barnes supported this case which showed its not restricted to sporting events? I think I am way off but I really cant think of anything else lol.
I'm doing the exact same and I'm really struggling too.
Could you use Konzani, it deals with transmitted disease however but the decision in r v barnes supported this case which showed its not restricted to sporting events? I think I am way off but I really cant think of anything else lol.
I did get that point written down too, and the fact it says that informed consent would be a defence. I'm just struggling on what to rely on tbh, haha. It's extremely hard . I've also got Jones (1986) and Aitken (1992), to relate to consent, but I'm not sure if that's relevant?
I did get that point written down too, and the fact it says that informed consent would be a defence. I'm just struggling on what to rely on tbh, haha. It's extremely hard . I've also got Jones (1986) and Aitken (1992), to relate to consent, but I'm not sure if that's relevant?
There is a thread on here about it, have u looked it up? but I totally do not understand half of it haha. But theres a guy who wrote a lot which is good. He spoke about Jones and Aitken saying that Barnes is relevant but I just cant get it into a point lol So are you going to use Konzani? I figured you couldn't due to it involving transmitted disease but I'm totally unsure haha. I was thinking of using the point about conducted sports being a public policy exception and that Barnes may involve an injury relating to sports but this exception applies to other things such as horseplay shown in Re Jones, Re Aitken????????
There is a thread on here about it, have u looked it up? but I totally do not understand half of it haha. But theres a guy who wrote a lot which is good. He spoke about Jones and Aitken saying that Barnes is relevant but I just cant get it into a point lol So are you going to use Konzani? I figured you couldn't due to it involving transmitted disease but I'm totally unsure haha. I was thinking of using the point about conducted sports being a public policy exception and that Barnes may involve an injury relating to sports but this exception applies to other things such as horseplay shown in Re Jones, Re Aitken????????
Yeah I've seen it. I'm just stuck on how I'm going to relate all the points I have to the scenario and the point of law :/
Yeah I've seen it. I'm just stuck on how I'm going to relate all the points I have to the scenario and the point of law :/
have you guys come across anything useful for the ground of appeal The decision in R v Dica [2004] QB 1257,is restricted to the transmission of disease through sexual intercourse.
have you guys come across anything useful for the ground of appeal The decision in R v Dica [2004] QB 1257,is restricted to the transmission of disease through sexual intercourse.
I am struggling too!
No sorry! I'm not doing that grounds of appeal unfortunately
have you guys come across anything useful for the ground of appeal The decision in R v Dica [2004] QB 1257,is restricted to the transmission of disease through sexual intercourse.
There is a thread on here about it, have u looked it up? but I totally do not understand half of it haha. But theres a guy who wrote a lot which is good. He spoke about Jones and Aitken saying that Barnes is relevant but I just cant get it into a point lol So are you going to use Konzani? I figured you couldn't due to it involving transmitted disease but I'm totally unsure haha. I was thinking of using the point about conducted sports being a public policy exception and that Barnes may involve an injury relating to sports but this exception applies to other things such as horseplay shown in Re Jones, Re Aitken????????
Im junior respondent as well and im still struggling to find submissions, could R v Coney apply here as thats a prize fighting case about public policy or is that just completely irrlevant??? so confused!!
Yeah I've seen it. I'm just stuck on how I'm going to relate all the points I have to the scenario and the point of law :/
Im junior respondent as well and im still struggling to find submissions, could R v Coney apply here as thats a prize fighting case about public policy or is that just completely irrlevant??? so confused!!
Im junior respondent as well and im still struggling to find submissions, could R v Coney apply here as thats a prize fighting case about public policy or is that just completely irrlevant??? so confused!!
I was thinking about using a public policy argument but I just can't find a point. How would you tu it into a point???
I was thinking about using a public policy argument but I just can't find a point. How would you tu it into a point???
I was thinking of saying something along the lines of how conducted sports are a public policy exception but im not sure how to make that into an argument and what cases to use. what would you use?
Im struggling to come up with concrete submissions for this moot haha
I was thinking of saying something along the lines of how conducted sports are a public policy exception but im not sure how to make that into an argument and what cases to use. what would you use?
Im struggling to come up with concrete submissions for this moot haha
I'm using the horseplay exception. I'm gonna relate it back to Barnes and public policy. R v A also known as R v P was looked at during the judgement of Barnes, and you'll find it in the cases cited on westlaw if you wanna look it up. But that's what I'm using to get around it lol.
I'm using the horseplay exception. I'm gonna relate it back to Barnes and public policy. R v A also known as R v P was looked at during the judgement of Barnes, and you'll find it in the cases cited on westlaw if you wanna look it up. But that's what I'm using to get around it lol.
I also have submitted my skeleton proforma today, so I have no choice now :|
I also have submitted my skeleton proforma today, so I have no choice now :|
Haha youre so lucky you are done, i was thinking of going along the lines of the fact that its a football match so there is informed consent and use konzani to back it up as that case is about the victim knowing what he or she is consenting to?? and then talk about public policy a bit??! i may be way off so im not sure!!
I'm using the horseplay exception. I'm gonna relate it back to Barnes and public policy. R v A also known as R v P was looked at during the judgement of Barnes, and you'll find it in the cases cited on westlaw if you wanna look it up. But that's what I'm using to get around it lol.
Have u finally submitted it?? What was your final points? Them ones ^^^
Haha youre so lucky you are done, i was thinking of going along the lines of the fact that its a football match so there is informed consent and use konzani to back it up as that case is about the victim knowing what he or she is consenting to?? and then talk about public policy a bit??! i may be way off so im not sure!!
Trust me I don't feel lucky, I didn't have any idea of what else to do so just went with that one submission. I'm not very confident in it haha.
Yeah, that's what I was going to do at first, but then I couldn't relate it to the actual point in any way, of it not being restricted..
Have u finally submitted it?? What was your final points? Them ones ^^^
Yeah, I used R v A, R v Aitken and R v Jones as my authority and how they were applied in the actual submission, just to keep it brief.. But then in the actual moot I will bulk it out and talk about the public policy etc etc, just to make sure it relates to the ground of appeal.