Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The A2 Unit 4 Law Exams Are Getting Closer

    Whos Doing Them? And Which One?

    Tort Here.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Tort
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    criminal (:
    then law&morality, law&justice and fault for concepts of law.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Fault is easier yeah, and im doing exactly same as the other person.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bringmesunshine)
    criminal (:
    then law&morality, law&justice and fault for concepts of law.
    Same!- except balancing conflicting interests over fault
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    -
    Really no one would be able to answer your first question in regards to that paper bcos we'd be sitting one or the other :yep:
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    -
    oh i didn't chose the topics.
    the teachers picked them as those were the ones they were most comfortable teaching us. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    -
    good luck
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    I'm doing Criminal & law and justice, law and morals, balancing conflicting interests.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Alot of people doing balancing conflicting interests why?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Maybe we can practice some essays together?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Swimmer)
    Alot of people doing balancing conflicting interests why?
    Not sure. My teacher chose ours as he believes it's the easiest.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Swimmer)
    Alot of people doing balancing conflicting interests why?
    most people aren't choosing it out of choice, we are being taught the course by school teachers who pick the modules for us.

    but then if most people's teachers are picking that topic then it must be the easiest.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm doing criminal and for the essays i'm doing law and justice, fault, balancing conflicting interests.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Maybe someone who has the essays written up allready can share?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Swimmer)
    Maybe someone who has the essays written up allready can share?
    I have written up one essay on law and morals but haven't got it back yet so will wait until then before i post it! I have, however, found an essay plan on Law and Justice which looks quite good...
    ESSAY PLAN ON JUSTICE

    Introduction.

    Define Justice. Use dictionary definitions.

    Two types:

    1. Formal/procedural justice. The mechanism by which 'just' decisions are made.

    2. Concrete/substantive justice. More concerned with 'just' end result.

    Say what you are going to do. Different views on what justice is. Look at the various theories of justice, and then the extent to which the English Legal system achieves procedural justice and substantive justice.

    MAIN BODY. Part 1 ( Theories of Justice)

    Aristotle.
    Argues 2 types a. Distributive justice - allocation of assets, in proportion.
    b. Corrective justice - wrongdoing, judge should discover what damage has been done, and restore equality.
    Natural Law Theorists
    A 'higher order' of law, is society follows these they will be just. Artistotle believed these came from nature, Thomas Aquinas came from God.
    Utilitarians
    Justice of any law assessed by looking at its
    consequences. 'Greatest happiness of the greatest number' Do they lead to an increase in overall happiness for the majority? If so they are just. John Stuart Mill, Jeremy Bentham. What about minorities? R v Brown.
    Rawls members of society should decide on a set of principles to advance the good of all members. Hypothetical, imaginary debate.
    Two basic principles a. set of basic liberties would be available to all.
    b. equality of opportunity and equality of distribution.
    If a society is just according to these principles, those who accept its benefits are bound to accept its riules as well - even if they don't like some of them, provided they don't impose heavy burdens unequally, or abuse basic principles.
    Nozick truly just society = the State should have mimimum possible right to interfere in affairs of individuals. Function of state should be limited to basic needs, such as protecting the individual against force, theft and fraud, enforcing contracts.
    Kelson and the Positivists believed law can be separated from what is just or morally right. A law is still a law and should be obeyed even if completed immoral. e.g. Nazi Germany. Justice is seen as simply the expression of individual preferences and values and therefore irrational. Not scientifically possible to define justice.
    Karl Marx argues that justice is not possible in a capitalist economic system. Laws have been put in place by the ruling class in their own interests, particularly laws relating to private property. Capitalim is based on inequality and exploitation. A just society can only be achieved under communism, when goods would be distributed according to need.
    Perelman six possible meanings of justice as varieties of concrete justice - to each according to his works, needs, merits, rank, legal entitlement and to each equally. To each according to his means could be added to the list.

    Main Body Part 2 (Is the English legal system just? Do legal rules achieve justice?)

    In terms of procedural justice we can argue that legal rules serve the interests of justice.
    a. Equal access to the law. Everyone has the right to put their case in court and to be represented. Bland was represented when in PVS.
    Against: However problems with Legal Aid, conditional fees/no win no fee, libel etc. The more money you have makes a difference in civil law.
    b. Rules of natural justice apply to make trials fair, both sides put their case. Rules apply that judges, magistrates, juries etc are not biased or appear to be biased.
    Against: However what about conviction-mindedness of magistrates? R v Bingham ex parte Jowitt (1974). Bias of judges? Re: Pinochet (1998).
    c. Strict rules of evidence. Only evidence that has been fairly obtained may be given in court. R v Watts (1983) Rv Miller (1992) Rv Reeves (1964) - give short details.

    Substantial justice. We can argue that a just outcome is the aim of the E.LS. Evidence for this is:
    a. Rectifying miscarriages of justice. Important this happens, which is why we have an appeals system.
    Criminal Cases Review Commision set up in 1995 after miscarriages of justice in relation to Birmingham 6 and Guildford 4 raised doubts aout appeal system.
    Once only defence could appeal, Criminal Justice Act 1972 allows Attorney-General to appeal for prosecution on a point of law only (doesn't alter earlier decision). CJA 1988 allows A.G. to appeal against a lenient sentence e.g Gwent rape case.
    b. Avoiding an awkward precedent. Rigid application of precedent may lead to an unjust result. Judges can promote justice by overruling, distinguishing or reversing. e.g Merrit v Merrit (1971) judge avoided precedent in Balfour v Balfour (1919)
    c. Conscience decisions by juries. Perverse verdict. Juries arrive at a verdict they consider just even though the evidence goes against it. R v Owen, Rv Kronlid, R v Randle and Pottle - brief summary of cases.
    d. Equity allows development of new remedies where existing law cannot provide a just result. Lord Denning and High Trees.
    e. Proportionality in sentencing. Punishment to fit the crime. Eroded possibly by Crime Sentences Act 1997? In R v Turner, Judge said his sentence had been unjust.

    Conclusion.

    There is the problem of defining 'justice' as we have seen, since people are talking about different things. Perfect justice in any legal system = impossible. It is perhaps best thought of as the ultimate goal to which any legal system should strive towards both procedurally and in terms of outcomes, whilst realising that it is practically unattainable. ELS has constantly to struggle to balance competing interests , arriving at the 'fairest' and most 'just' solution it can find. For example, was justice really served to everyone's satisfaction in Re: A (Conjoined Twins), Hunter and others v Canary Wharf Ltd and London Docklands Corporation?

    It doesnt mean a great deal to me yet as we haven't even finished the syllabus yet but it may be of help to others who have!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Anyone got an essay for fault that I can take a look at?

    Thanks, Sarah
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bringmesunshine)
    criminal (:
    then law&morality, law&justice and fault for concepts of law.
    I'm doing these as well! We need to test each other people! OP how you doing? aint spoke to you for a while :p:
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    does anyone have an essay plan for law and morality?

    Furthermore could someone please provide a structure for answering a tort(A2) question. You can use the question below as a basis for setting your structure example.

    Previously a quiet lake overlooked by a few cottages, Blackwater has recently been developed by
    its owner, Sportlife Developments, to provide extensive leisure facilities, including swimming and
    powerboating. In consequence, the owners of the cottages, including Ingrid, have experienced a
    large increase in noise, especially at weekends and during frequent competition weeks, when
    traffic and parking problems have also made it difficult for them to leave or return to their
    properties. Additionally, damage to a diesel oil storage tank owned by Sportlife Developments
    resulted in a leak which caused extensive contamination of Ingrid’s vegetable garden.
    Some swimmers were in the habit of swimming beneath the surface in an area of Blackwater
    clearly marked out for powerboating only. Whilst doing so, Jon surfaced into the path of a
    powerboat being driven by Kylie. In the resulting collision, Jon suffered severe facial injuries and
    Kylie was knocked out of the boat and had her arm severed by the propeller. Kylie’s friend,
    Rachel, who was in another boat, dragged her out of the water to safety. The experience caused
    Rachel deep emotional disturbance.


    Consider what rights and remedies the owners of the cottages, including Ingrid, may have
    in connection with the noise and other problems caused by the leisure activities and the
    oil spillage.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I need a little bit of help with fraud by false representation

    Actus reus:
    Making a representation which is false ("untrue of misleading" )

    Mens rea:
    Dishonesty (gosh test)
    D must know or believe the representation to be untrue or misleading
    D must intend to make a gain or cause a loss

    Im a bit stuck with the mens rea. What i was wondering was when does D need to have had "intent to make a gain or cause loss"/"know or believe the representation to be untrue or misleading? Do they need to have the intent at the exact time of making the representation or can they form the intent afterwards and then be found guilty?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: August 20, 2010

2,628

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.