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 .
(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
I don't want Oxford to know I only got an A...