Join TSR now and get all your revision questions answeredSign up now
    • 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
Which web browser do you use?

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

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