structure problems??

Hi,

I'm currently in my first year of law and finding it really difficult to structure my answers - especially to problem questions.

When I have asked around, alot of people are like use the IRAC (Identify, Rule, Apply and Conclusion) application method but my seminar tutor constantly says just dive in and write what is relevant?

Does anyone know what is best and what type of structure someone should use to gain a 2:1 or above and can someone give me a small example of how to structure it effectively?

Personally, I use IDEA (Identify, Define, Example, Application)

IDENTIFY the relevant law (ie. assault)
DEFINE the law (the actus reus of assault is...)
Give a relevant EXAMPLE (Ireland/Burstow)
Explain how this APPLIES to the problem scenario (This is relevant because in the given scenario x commits and assault on y when he...)

I find that this is the most effective way for me to obtain a 2:1 or above.

Thank you soo much for replying.

So would you start a paragraph like this for exp. we can identify that this is assult (Identify Part). The law under assault is under S39... (define) and then in the case of Ireland (example) it was held that silent phone call messages can amount to assault (Apply) and this applies to the relevant scenairo because Carol (Defendant) has assulated Lucy (Claimaint) with silent messages.

(This is just a small example) - Let me know if his how I should strcture it.

Also - would you add any articles/journals to emphasis your point or would this only be relevant for essay questions.

Also - have you tried this structure way for the problem question and managed to get a 2:1???

For assault you'd need to do 2 of these IDEA structures, one for the actus reus and one for the mens rea.

So you could say an offence that Carol could be convicted of is assault as established under section 39 of Criminal Justice Act 1988. The actus reus of assault is "x". This is highlighted in the case of Ireland "ratio". In the given scenario, Carol has committed an assault on Lucy (lets say...) by shouting that she was going to "kill her when she got hold of her".

The mens rea for assault is "x". This is highlighted in the case of Constanza "ratio". In the given scenario, Carol had the intention to commit the assault on Lucy as she... Carol was reckless that she might cause Lucy to apprehend immediate and unlawful violence when she yelled at her.

I don't do criminal law till next year, Have you done contract law by any chance?

I have, I got a 2.1 in contract law. Is it a particular thing you're trying to structure or just structuring contract problem scenarios in general? Cause if it's something specific I don't mind having a look through with you