maha1337
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
So, I'm working on a coursework for English legal system and got a question I have to answer; 'On what grounds would you argue that an individual’s right to access to justice is being denied because there is insufficient public funding of legal aid?'

Someone knows what's good to mention and write about?
0
reply
martin jol
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
nah mate, no one.
0
reply
maha1337
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#3
(Original post by martin jol)
nah mate, no one.
lol
0
reply
SmaugTheTerrible
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#4
Report 6 years ago
#4
(Original post by maha1337)
So, I'm working on a coursework for English legal system and got a question I have to answer; 'On what grounds would you argue that an individual’s right to access to justice is being denied because there is insufficient public funding of legal aid?'

Someone knows what's good to mention and write about?
I'm a law student but I have no idea about this questions. Haven't studied this but I'll give it a go.

In common law countries there is an adversarial judicial systems which can be described as a 'trial by battle' (contrary to civil system) in which often it is not the arguments being presented but rather how they are being presented that can often sway the jury in your favour. This means those who can afford the best adversaries will be in a better position. On the contrary this a gross generalisation that fails to take into account the incredibly small amount of cases this can actually have an effect since most judges are able to guide the jury in a manner which is most appropriate. In the UK if you cannot afford legal representation then it will be provided for you.

Some other points:
- in a effort to lower the legal costs undertaken by the government people are often not given the representation they require
-and I should get back to revising my own work....
0
reply
maha1337
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#5
(Original post by adamsmithqm)
I'm a law student but I have no idea about this questions. Haven't studied this but I'll give it a go.

In common law countries there is an adversarial judicial systems which can be described as a 'trial by battle' (contrary to civil system) in which often it is not the arguments being presented but rather how they are being presented that can often sway the jury in your favour. This means those who can afford the best adversaries will be in a better position. On the contrary this a gross generalisation that fails to take into account the incredibly small amount of cases this can actually have an effect since most judges are able to guide the jury in a manner which is most appropriate. In the UK if you cannot afford legal representation then it will be provided for you.

Some other points:
- in a effort to lower the legal costs undertaken by the government people are often not given the representation they require
-and I should get back to revising my own work....
Thanks a lot! I'm so confused atm. Don't know where to start.. But again, thanks :-)
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

University open days

  • Sheffield Hallam University
    Get into Teaching in South Yorkshire Undergraduate
    Wed, 26 Feb '20
  • The University of Law
    Solicitor Series: Assessing Trainee Skills – LPC, GDL and MA Law - London Moorgate campus Postgraduate
    Wed, 26 Feb '20
  • University of East Anglia
    PGCE Open day Postgraduate
    Sat, 29 Feb '20

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (533)
66.54%
No (268)
33.46%

Watched Threads

View All