Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter

    I have an interview coming up at University to study Law. I've been given some questions to discuss at the interview relating to the case of Mullin v Richards [1998].

    (Two 15yo girls were fighting with rulers. A ruler broke and blinded one of the girls. Trial judge said the girls were negligent. In the Appeal the judge said no-one was negligent as the provisions are different for children regarding foreseeability.)

    I wonder if anyone can help me on my final question...

    Does the decision in Mullin v Richards 1998 (COA decision) fit in with our attitudes towards children generally? And how?

    So far I have that;
    - Children are under the supervision / guardian of a responsible adult.
    - Children are not criminally responsible until the age of 10 - even then they're subject to 'special' tariff rules when being sentenced, unlike adults.

    If anyone can shed some light on this, I'd be super appreciative. I have answered the other 10 questions myself, I am just asking for some help on this one
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: March 19, 2013
What's the best type of cheese?

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