DonC715
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#1
issue sorted
Last edited by DonC715; 4 weeks ago
0
reply
Tinders
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 month ago
#2
How far have you got. Do you know Ivey v Genting inside out?

- Facts
- the appeal + background
- Arguments from counsel
- Ratio
- Academic commentary on the case
- application of the case

These are all things you need to look at if you haven't done so already.
Last edited by Tinders; 1 month ago
0
reply
tinygirl96
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 month ago
#3
This is a plan to follow
Facts
For and against
Appeal information
Arguments behind the case
Summary of events leading up to the case
Short report on the arrest etc
Any other information
Decision made regarding the verdict
0
reply
DonC715
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#4
(Original post by Tinders)
How far have you got. Do you know Ivey v Genting inside out?

- Facts
- the appeal + background
- Arguments from counsel
- Ratio
- Academic commentary on the case
- application of the case

These are all things you need to look at if you haven't done so already.
Thanks a lot for the response!
I am fairly* familiar with the Ivey v Genting case, would you say this case should be my main case of focus in my answer?
0
reply
DonC715
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#5
Thanks a lot for your response!
I don't suppose you happen to know of any useful cases i could utilise within my answer perhaps? Ivey v Genting Casinos for example.
Thanks a lot

(Original post by tinygirl96)
This is a plan to follow
Facts
For and against
Appeal information
Arguments behind the case
Summary of events leading up to the case
Short report on the arrest etc
Any other information
Decision made regarding the verdict
0
reply
legalhelp
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 month ago
#6
(Original post by DonC715)
Thanks a lot for your response!
I don't suppose you happen to know of any useful cases i could utilise within my answer perhaps? Ivey v Genting Casinos for example.
Thanks a lot
Since you are answering the question in a criminal context, you will need to take a look at the CACD’s decision in Barton as well.

tinygirl96’s post is, unfortunately, complete jibberish. “Short report on the arrest etc”? Ivey v Genting is a civil case! I don’t mean to be rude but posts from this user seem to be in some way automatically generated, and rarely make any sense at all, so I would suggest you ignore them.
0
reply
Tinders
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 month ago
#7
(Original post by DonC715)
Thanks a lot for the response!
I am fairly* familiar with the Ivey v Genting case, would you say this case should be my main case of focus in my answer?
Ivey is certainly an important case and is certainly the place to begin when answering the first part of the question, but you will also need to consider cases that applied/demurred from Ivey if any.
0
reply
DonC715
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#8
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#8
(Original post by legalhelp)
Since you are answering the question in a criminal context, you will need to take a look at the CACD’s decision in Barton as well.

tinygirl96’s post is, unfortunately, complete jibberish. “Short report on the arrest etc”? Ivey v Genting is a civil case! I don’t mean to be rude but posts from this user seem to be in some way automatically generated, and rarely make any sense at all, so I would suggest you ignore them.
Ok fantastic, thanks for your response!
I'm not too familiar with the case of R v Barton and Booth. I will delve into that case and the judgment too!
I don't mean to "bite off more than i can chew" so to speak, but how would you plan your answer? Do you think the question at hand is particularly difficult?
0
reply
DonC715
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#9
(Original post by Tinders)
Ivey is certainly an important case and is certainly the place to begin when answering the first part of the question, but you will also need to consider cases that applied/demurred from Ivey if any.
ok, noted. Thanks a lot for your help! Really appreciate that.
I'm just struggling to plan my answer.
Take care, thank you.
1
reply
legalhelp
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 month ago
#10
(Original post by DonC715)
Ok fantastic, thanks for your response!
I'm not too familiar with the case of R v Barton and Booth. I will delve into that case and the judgment too!
I don't mean to "bite off more than i can chew" so to speak, but how would you plan your answer? Do you think the question at hand is particularly difficult?
No, it isn’t a particularly difficult question. But it does require you to read the judgments in both Ivey and Barton properly, and to understand what the court in each instance has actually done. That wouldn’t be biting off more than you can chew, that would be the bare minimum needed in order to answer this question.

There is of course much more you could do in terms of tracking the development of the law relating to dishonestly up to Ivey, reviewing cases in the criminal courts applying Ivey and Barton, and looking for any judgments or other commentary on those two cases (particularly for the last part of the question). If you are a university student I would expect you to be doing all that. In terms of structure, I would approach the answer roughly as follows:

(Intro)
(Summary)
(Main discussion, broken down into the following headers)
1. The law on dishonesty before Ivey
2. Ivey: summary of the facts, the issues, and the decisions made by the court on those issues
3. Barton and the application of Ivey in the criminal courts
4. Summary of the present state of the law on dishonesty
5. The “should this be the case” part of the question, so presenting your views on the current test for dishonesty and whether the test should be different or not
(Conclusion)
0
reply
DonC715
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#11
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#11
(Original post by legalhelp)
No, it isn’t a particularly difficult question. But it does require you to read the judgments in both Ivey and Barton properly, and to understand what the court in each instance has actually done. That wouldn’t be biting off more than you can chew, that would be the bare minimum needed in order to answer this question.

There is of course much more you could do in terms of tracking the development of the law relating to dishonestly up to Ivey, reviewing cases in the criminal courts applying Ivey and Barton, and looking for any judgments or other commentary on those two cases (particularly for the last part of the question). If you are a university student I would expect you to be doing all that. In terms of structure, I would approach the answer roughly as follows:

(Intro)
(Summary)
(Main discussion, broken down into the following headers)
1. The law on dishonesty before Ivey
2. Ivey: summary of the facts, the issues, and the decisions made by the court on those issues
3. Barton and the application of Ivey in the criminal courts
4. Summary of the present state of the law on dishonesty
5. The “should this be the case” part of the question, so presenting your views on the current test for dishonesty and whether the test should be different or not
(Conclusion)
Wow.
Thank you ever so much for your help! Fantastic response, i've taken everything into account and i now feel a lot more confident in facing the question now.
Take care and enjoy your week!
0
reply
DonC715
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#12
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#12
(Original post by legalhelp)
No, it isn’t a particularly difficult question. But it does require you to read the judgments in both Ivey and Barton properly, and to understand what the court in each instance has actually done. That wouldn’t be biting off more than you can chew, that would be the bare minimum needed in order to answer this question.

There is of course much more you could do in terms of tracking the development of the law relating to dishonestly up to Ivey, reviewing cases in the criminal courts applying Ivey and Barton, and looking for any judgments or other commentary on those two cases (particularly for the last part of the question). If you are a university student I would expect you to be doing all that. In terms of structure, I would approach the answer roughly as follows:

(Intro)
(Summary)
(Main discussion, broken down into the following headers)
1. The law on dishonesty before Ivey
2. Ivey: summary of the facts, the issues, and the decisions made by the court on those issues
3. Barton and the application of Ivey in the criminal courts
4. Summary of the present state of the law on dishonesty
5. The “should this be the case” part of the question, so presenting your views on the current test for dishonesty and whether the test should be different or not
(Conclusion)
Hi again! I hope you're well, just a quick proposition, would you possibly be able to read my answer over when I have completed it? I would be very grateful for that. Only if that's possible, no worries if not- you have helped me a lot! Thanks
0
reply
legalhelp
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 month ago
#13
(Original post by DonC715)
Hi again! I hope you're well, just a quick proposition, would you possibly be able to read my answer over when I have completed it? I would be very grateful for that. Only if that's possible, no worries if not- you have helped me a lot! Thanks
Hi there. I’m afraid I don’t have time to mark individual answers, but if you are willing to post your answer on this thread (so others can also benefit) I can probably give you some high level comments? Others on this forum can also chip in that way. Totally up to you.
0
reply
DonC715
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#14
(Original post by legalhelp)
Hi there. I’m afraid I don’t have time to mark individual answers, but if you are willing to post your answer on this thread (so others can also benefit) I can probably give you some high level comments? Others on this forum can also chip in that way. Totally up to you.
That's fine! Thanks so much. I wouldn't expect you to mark my answer that's ok I will probably just paste it onto here, or maybe just send it to you directly through messages, and maybe when you get the time you could possibly give me some little pointers or comments. Really, I do appreciate it. Take care! Thanks again.
0
reply
Tinders
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 month ago
#15
(Original post by DonC715)
That's fine! Thanks so much. I wouldn't expect you to mark my answer that's ok I will probably just paste it onto here, or maybe just send it to you directly through messages, and maybe when you get the time you could possibly give me some little pointers or comments. Really, I do appreciate it. Take care! Thanks again.
Do NOT paste your answer here. The last thing you want is someone plagiarising your work, handing it in first then you look like the cheat.
0
reply
legalhelp
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 month ago
#16
(Original post by Tinders)
Do NOT paste your answer here. The last thing you want is someone plagiarising your work, handing it in first then you look like the cheat.
Good point, sorry I hadn’t even thought about that.
0
reply
unknown7866
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 weeks ago
#17
What is the Judgment of the Court of Appeal and Explain the Legal Reasoning of the court in either allowing or dismissing the appeal?

I need someone to help me with the following, breaking the question down and how to structure it?

What do you exactly note down when talking about Judgments of C of A and Legal Reasoning of Court? If you could please, help me with write examples on how to answer the question?

Thank you.
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

Do you think mandatory Relationships and Sex Education in secondary schools is a good idea?

Yes (358)
84.04%
No (68)
15.96%

Watched Threads

View All