This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Law with foundation - MMU
- Official Richmond American University London Applicant Thread for 2024
- The Official Royal Holloway Applicants for 2024 Entry Thread
- SOAS foundation year- Business, Management, Economics & Law with Foundation Year
- Official University College London freshers 2023 chat
- Y12
- Worcester College Oxford Offer Holders 2024
- Official The University of Law Applicant Thread for 2024
- Is Goldsmiths a good University?
- Official University of Hull Applicant Thread for 2024
- A Level Law Study Group 2020-21
- A Level Law Study Group 2022
- I'm an undergraduate law student at the University of Kent - Ask me anything!
- Cambridge History 2024 offer-holders
- Official Swansea University 2023 Applicant Thread
- Official University of Surrey 2023 Clearing Thread
- Official Brunel University 2022 Applicant Thread
- QMUL LAW LLB opinions
- Soas or royal holloway for law?
- sheffield or cardiff uni?
Law Students - Chat Thread
Scroll to see replies
Hey guys, I've just been given a mooting problem and I have no idea where to start. I'm so confused, can anyone point me in the right direction? This is my first time mooting and I have no idea what cases to uses or anything! I really don't want to mess this up! Thanks in advance 
Here is the problem:
In the House of Lords
Early in the morning of the 15 September 1999, Ola James, a committed environmentalist campaigner, entered a farm belonging to Jeff Archer. She had discovered that Jeff Archer was one of the farmers participating in country wide experiments to discover whether genetically modified crops (GM crops) were safe, and she was determined to destroy as much of the crop being grown on his farm as she could. As it had not rained for over 2
weeks and the crop was dry, she decided to set fire to the crop and carried with her a can of petrol and a box of matches.
At first her plan seemed to succeed. She managed to set fire to a substantial part of the
crop. However, the fire went out of control and spread to a number of farm sheds and from there spread to the farmhouse where Jeff and his family lived. Ola was by this time terrified of what she had done and got into her car and drove off. Jeff, who had woken early to milk the cows, came rushing back to the farmhouse. He tried to rescue his wife and small son from the burning building but it was too late and both died in the fire.
Ola James was arrested and charged with:
(a) One count of arson in relation to the GM crop under s.1(1) and one count of arson in relation to the sheds and farmhouse under s.1(1), read together with s.(3) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, and
(b) The murder of Jeff Archer's wife and son. (For a number of reasons that are of no concern here, the prosecution elected no to bring charges under s.1(2) of the 1971 Act for manslaughter).
At her trial, Harshly J directed the jury as follows (assume that other parts of his directions are accurate):
As far as the damage to the crop is concerned, the defendant has tried to justify her actions by relying on the defence of lawful excuse contained in s.5 of the 1971 Act. The law, as I understand it, is clear on this point. There is no scientific evidence to indicate that GM crops are a danger to the public. Accordingly, you do not need to concern yourself with lawful excuse.
In relation to the burning down of the sheds and farmhouse, you must ask
yourself whether that would be a natural and probable consequence following from the defendant's actions in setting fire to the crop. If you are of the opinion that it was, then you are entitled to come to the conclusion that it was the defendant's intention to burn down these buildings, just as it was her intention to set fire to the crop.
Turning to the counts of murder, I must tell you that, here again, the law is clear. A defendant need not have a direct intention of killing her victims. But if her actions are such that there is a high degree of probability that death or serious bodily harm will result, this may be sufficient to merit a guilty verdict. Accordingly, it is for you to decide whether you consider that the defendant's actions gave rise to such a high degree of probability that death or serious bodily harm would result.
The jury convicted Ola James on all counts. Her appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed but she obtained leave to appeal to the House of Lords.
The agreed grounds of appeal are as follows:
1. The trial judge misdirected the jury in relation to criminal damage by arson in that the defence of lawful excuse should have been left to the jury to decide. Moreover, the direction on the necessary mens rea was manifestly incorrect.
2. The necessary test for determining intention on a charge of murder was now contained in the case of R v Woolin [1999] AC 82. The trial judge had erred in law in not applying this test.
I know it's really long, and I understand if you don't want to read it. I just didn't know what to do and am panicking a bit.
Thanks very much!
(I posted this already on TSR but only just realised that this thread exists,!)
Here is the problem:
In the House of Lords
R -v- Ola James
Early in the morning of the 15 September 1999, Ola James, a committed environmentalist campaigner, entered a farm belonging to Jeff Archer. She had discovered that Jeff Archer was one of the farmers participating in country wide experiments to discover whether genetically modified crops (GM crops) were safe, and she was determined to destroy as much of the crop being grown on his farm as she could. As it had not rained for over 2
weeks and the crop was dry, she decided to set fire to the crop and carried with her a can of petrol and a box of matches.
At first her plan seemed to succeed. She managed to set fire to a substantial part of the
crop. However, the fire went out of control and spread to a number of farm sheds and from there spread to the farmhouse where Jeff and his family lived. Ola was by this time terrified of what she had done and got into her car and drove off. Jeff, who had woken early to milk the cows, came rushing back to the farmhouse. He tried to rescue his wife and small son from the burning building but it was too late and both died in the fire.
Ola James was arrested and charged with:
(a) One count of arson in relation to the GM crop under s.1(1) and one count of arson in relation to the sheds and farmhouse under s.1(1), read together with s.(3) of the Criminal Damage Act 1971, and
(b) The murder of Jeff Archer's wife and son. (For a number of reasons that are of no concern here, the prosecution elected no to bring charges under s.1(2) of the 1971 Act for manslaughter).
At her trial, Harshly J directed the jury as follows (assume that other parts of his directions are accurate):
As far as the damage to the crop is concerned, the defendant has tried to justify her actions by relying on the defence of lawful excuse contained in s.5 of the 1971 Act. The law, as I understand it, is clear on this point. There is no scientific evidence to indicate that GM crops are a danger to the public. Accordingly, you do not need to concern yourself with lawful excuse.
In relation to the burning down of the sheds and farmhouse, you must ask
yourself whether that would be a natural and probable consequence following from the defendant's actions in setting fire to the crop. If you are of the opinion that it was, then you are entitled to come to the conclusion that it was the defendant's intention to burn down these buildings, just as it was her intention to set fire to the crop.
Turning to the counts of murder, I must tell you that, here again, the law is clear. A defendant need not have a direct intention of killing her victims. But if her actions are such that there is a high degree of probability that death or serious bodily harm will result, this may be sufficient to merit a guilty verdict. Accordingly, it is for you to decide whether you consider that the defendant's actions gave rise to such a high degree of probability that death or serious bodily harm would result.
The jury convicted Ola James on all counts. Her appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed but she obtained leave to appeal to the House of Lords.
The agreed grounds of appeal are as follows:
1. The trial judge misdirected the jury in relation to criminal damage by arson in that the defence of lawful excuse should have been left to the jury to decide. Moreover, the direction on the necessary mens rea was manifestly incorrect.
2. The necessary test for determining intention on a charge of murder was now contained in the case of R v Woolin [1999] AC 82. The trial judge had erred in law in not applying this test.
I know it's really long, and I understand if you don't want to read it. I just didn't know what to do and am panicking a bit.
Thanks very much!
(I posted this already on TSR but only just realised that this thread exists,!)
Original post by Fairydust19
Hey guys, I've just been given a mooting problem and I have no idea where to start. I'm so confused, can anyone point me in the right direction? This is my first time mooting and I have no idea what cases to uses or anything! I really don't want to mess this up! Thanks in advance
Thanks very much!
(I posted this already on TSR but only just realised that this thread exists,!)
Thanks very much!
(I posted this already on TSR but only just realised that this thread exists,!)
Calm down - no need to panic!
Now, which side are you on, and which of the grounds of appeal has been assigned to you?
Appellant or respondent?
For the last point, you only really have to look at R v Woollin. If I remember correctly, R v Woollin was an appeal regarding the exact same jury direction (High degree of probability). So if your the appellant, you're looking to argue that the direction should of been based on virtual certainty. If you're the respondent, then you won't really have any case on that point. I have no idea why a moot problem would have an indefensible point of law
For the last point, you only really have to look at R v Woollin. If I remember correctly, R v Woollin was an appeal regarding the exact same jury direction (High degree of probability). So if your the appellant, you're looking to argue that the direction should of been based on virtual certainty. If you're the respondent, then you won't really have any case on that point. I have no idea why a moot problem would have an indefensible point of law
Original post by zaliack
Appellant or respondent?
For the last point, you only really have to look at R v Woollin. If I remember correctly, R v Woollin was an appeal regarding the exact same jury direction (High degree of probability). So if your the appellant, you're looking to argue that the direction should of been based on virtual certainty. If you're the respondent, then you won't really have any case on that point. I have no idea why a moot problem would have an indefensible point of law
For the last point, you only really have to look at R v Woollin. If I remember correctly, R v Woollin was an appeal regarding the exact same jury direction (High degree of probability). So if your the appellant, you're looking to argue that the direction should of been based on virtual certainty. If you're the respondent, then you won't really have any case on that point. I have no idea why a moot problem would have an indefensible point of law
I think "virtual certainty" is a moot point (har har) since I think that the precise form of words isn't important as long as the standard is made clear, if I recall correctly. I think the bigger hurdle is going to be the lack of mention of the subjective limb of the test (i.e. D realised that there was a virtual certainty of death/serious injury).
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Tortious
Calm down - no need to panic!
Now, which side are you on, and which of the grounds of appeal has been assigned to you?
Now, which side are you on, and which of the grounds of appeal has been assigned to you?
Original post by zaliack
Appellant or respondent?
For the last point, you only really have to look at R v Woollin. If I remember correctly, R v Woollin was an appeal regarding the exact same jury direction (High degree of probability). So if your the appellant, you're looking to argue that the direction should of been based on virtual certainty. If you're the respondent, then you won't really have any case on that point. I have no idea why a moot problem would have an indefensible point of law
For the last point, you only really have to look at R v Woollin. If I remember correctly, R v Woollin was an appeal regarding the exact same jury direction (High degree of probability). So if your the appellant, you're looking to argue that the direction should of been based on virtual certainty. If you're the respondent, then you won't really have any case on that point. I have no idea why a moot problem would have an indefensible point of law
Hi thanks for replying
I'm the junior appellant and I've been assigned the second appeal. So should I just base my appeal completely on R v Woollin or should I look at other cases too?
Original post by Fairydust19
Hi thanks for replying I'm the junior appellant and I've been assigned the second appeal.
So should I just base my appeal completely on R v Woollin or should I look at other cases too?
I'm the junior appellant and I've been assigned the second appeal. So should I just base my appeal completely on R v Woollin or should I look at other cases too?
If memory serves, it would be worth your looking at Matthews and Alleyne, and any other leading cases which cite Woollin. In this sort of moot, at this sort of level (though I'm perplexed about why your moot is being heard 3+ years ago--which is when the last House of Lords case was heard!) academic commentary can occasionally be helpful.
Original post by Fairydust19
Hi thanks for replying I'm the junior appellant and I've been assigned the second appeal.
So should I just base my appeal completely on R v Woollin or should I look at other cases too?
I'm the junior appellant and I've been assigned the second appeal. So should I just base my appeal completely on R v Woollin or should I look at other cases too?
I think looking only at Woollin would be pretty risky - you need to show that it's become settled law, and that the test wasn't followed. (It's up to you which order you address those in, but I'd be inclined to deal with the "settled law" point fairly quickly so you have more time to look at the detail of the test.)
Matthews and Alleyne [2003] endorses the Woollin test. It's also worth noting that in Woollin itself, the judge directed the jury in terms of "substantial risk", which was wider in scope than the notion of "virtual certainty", so his murder conviction was quashed (and instead he was convicted of manslaughter).
Original post by Fairydust19
Hi thanks for replying I'm the junior appellant and I've been assigned the second appeal.
So should I just base my appeal completely on R v Woollin or should I look at other cases too?
I'm the junior appellant and I've been assigned the second appeal. So should I just base my appeal completely on R v Woollin or should I look at other cases too?
In addition to what tortious and jjarvis suggested, I'd recommend reading R v Hyam. This is the case where the 'natural and probably consequence' test that Harshly J used in your moot case. The case was overruled by Woollin, but obviously unless the respondents are just going to concede your ground of appeal, they will need some argument why the law should revert to what it was in Hyam - hence worth reading so you can pre-empt their arguments.
5th rejection came in today, going to start preparing for a new round of applications!
Took part in the most pointless interview technique workshop ever.
They went on about the importance of listening positively, maintaining eye-contact etc. Then I got paired up with a girl who was completely gawjus. Well - duh, of course I'm going to be engaged by whatever it is that she has to say. She's going on about how her name's Millie and read History at Warwick or whatever -I'm looking into her eyes, nodding and smiling as though she's the most interesting person in the world. It's like giving Jamie Oliver a lesson on using a toaster.
They went on about the importance of listening positively, maintaining eye-contact etc. Then I got paired up with a girl who was completely gawjus. Well - duh, of course I'm going to be engaged by whatever it is that she has to say. She's going on about how her name's Millie and read History at Warwick or whatever -I'm looking into her eyes, nodding and smiling as though she's the most interesting person in the world. It's like giving Jamie Oliver a lesson on using a toaster.
Original post by Clip
Took part in the most pointless interview technique workshop ever.
They went on about the importance of listening positively, maintaining eye-contact etc. Then I got paired up with a girl who was completely gawjus. Well - duh, of course I'm going to be engaged by whatever it is that she has to say. She's going on about how her name's Millie and read History at Warwick or whatever -I'm looking into her eyes, nodding and smiling as though she's the most interesting person in the world. It's like giving Jamie Oliver a lesson on using a toaster.
They went on about the importance of listening positively, maintaining eye-contact etc. Then I got paired up with a girl who was completely gawjus. Well - duh, of course I'm going to be engaged by whatever it is that she has to say. She's going on about how her name's Millie and read History at Warwick or whatever -I'm looking into her eyes, nodding and smiling as though she's the most interesting person in the world. It's like giving Jamie Oliver a lesson on using a toaster.
That's the Halo Effect talking.
Original post by Ape Gone Insane
That's the Halo Effect talking.
We didn't talk about video games. I was too busy having a sexual fantasy.
HELP!!!
I need to draft a short bill based on a scenario where it is necessary that I ban demonstrations on university premises during the academic year while not curtailing "legitimate business" of staff, students and visitors. I understand the concept of sections, subsections etc and I've managed to include everything relevant on penalties etc. The only problem is, I don't know how to go about defining terminology. For example "premises," "academic year," "demonstrations" etc. Should I create a clause for definitions or do it throughout the Act as subsections?
I'm not asking for my work to be done for me, but I'm really struggling with this.
I need to draft a short bill based on a scenario where it is necessary that I ban demonstrations on university premises during the academic year while not curtailing "legitimate business" of staff, students and visitors. I understand the concept of sections, subsections etc and I've managed to include everything relevant on penalties etc. The only problem is, I don't know how to go about defining terminology. For example "premises," "academic year," "demonstrations" etc. Should I create a clause for definitions or do it throughout the Act as subsections?
I'm not asking for my work to be done for me, but I'm really struggling with this.
Original post by HappyBappy
HELP!!!
I need to draft a short bill based on a scenario where it is necessary that I ban demonstrations on university premises during the academic year while not curtailing "legitimate business" of staff, students and visitors. I understand the concept of sections, subsections etc and I've managed to include everything relevant on penalties etc. The only problem is, I don't know how to go about defining terminology. For example "premises," "academic year," "demonstrations" etc. Should I create a clause for definitions or do it throughout the Act as subsections?
I'm not asking for my work to be done for me, but I'm really struggling with this.
I need to draft a short bill based on a scenario where it is necessary that I ban demonstrations on university premises during the academic year while not curtailing "legitimate business" of staff, students and visitors. I understand the concept of sections, subsections etc and I've managed to include everything relevant on penalties etc. The only problem is, I don't know how to go about defining terminology. For example "premises," "academic year," "demonstrations" etc. Should I create a clause for definitions or do it throughout the Act as subsections?
I'm not asking for my work to be done for me, but I'm really struggling with this.
This is a nice little Act which shows most of the key drafting techniques
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/23/contents
I need to find out what the standard 'text' of both a fixed penalty notice and a conditional caution is, and what words the police are supposed to say when administering either of them. Anyone know where I can go to find that sort of stuff out?
Original post by Forum User
I need to find out what the standard 'text' of both a fixed penalty notice and a conditional caution is, and what words the police are supposed to say when administering either of them. Anyone know where I can go to find that sort of stuff out?
The codes annexed to PACE? They give you the wording for cautions and warnings about adverse inferences and so forth.
Failing which, I'd start with Blackstone's or a practitioner's text on police law and see if they refer you to the appropriate place.
Original post by jjarvis
The codes annexed to PACE? They give you the wording for cautions and warnings about adverse inferences and so forth.
Failing which, I'd start with Blackstone's or a practitioner's text on police law and see if they refer you to the appropriate place.
Failing which, I'd start with Blackstone's or a practitioner's text on police law and see if they refer you to the appropriate place.
Great, thanks - have never done any kind of 'procedural' criminal stuff before but this was relevant to a moot problem
Ok .. so what is the difference between LLB and BA.. as I don;t know what i want to work in the future.. it really depends on the grade i get.. but i don't think that I want to be a barrister.. so which one is the best? PLEaseeee helpp meee!! Thanks a lot !!
Original post by lidiya
Ok .. so what is the difference between LLB and BA.. as I don;t know what i want to work in the future.. it really depends on the grade i get.. but i don't think that I want to be a barrister.. so which one is the best? PLEaseeee helpp meee!! Thanks a lot !!
An LLB is a qualifying law degree, which satisfies part of the educational requirement to be a solicitor/barrister. A BA Law degree is unique to Oxbridge (& Southampton Solent, for some odd reason), it's the exact same thing though.
Original post by zaliack
An LLB is a qualifying law degree, which satisfies part of the educational requirement to be a solicitor/barrister. A BA Law degree is unique to Oxbridge (& Southampton Solent, for some odd reason), it's the exact same thing though.
Alright.. thanks.. and I also found out that BA is quite rare comapared to LLB..
Related discussions
- Law with foundation - MMU
- Official Richmond American University London Applicant Thread for 2024
- The Official Royal Holloway Applicants for 2024 Entry Thread
- SOAS foundation year- Business, Management, Economics & Law with Foundation Year
- Official University College London freshers 2023 chat
- Y12
- Worcester College Oxford Offer Holders 2024
- Official The University of Law Applicant Thread for 2024
- Is Goldsmiths a good University?
- Official University of Hull Applicant Thread for 2024
- A Level Law Study Group 2020-21
- A Level Law Study Group 2022
- I'm an undergraduate law student at the University of Kent - Ask me anything!
- Cambridge History 2024 offer-holders
- Official Swansea University 2023 Applicant Thread
- Official University of Surrey 2023 Clearing Thread
- Official Brunel University 2022 Applicant Thread
- QMUL LAW LLB opinions
- Soas or royal holloway for law?
- sheffield or cardiff uni?
