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

Citations... watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Sorry for starting another thread! Just I am a bit confused.

    I am aware that the hierarchy for law reports begins with the official Law Reports, then WLR.

    Are the official Law Reports cited as LR, or does this mean reports such as CA?

    I ask this because I have not yet come across one cited as LR, and I have seen several references to reports such as CA used as authority, when there is also a WLR citation for it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.legalabbrevs.cardiff.ac.uk/ is what I always used to use to avoid confusion!
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Isn't the citation for official law reports ICLR?

    When you refer to CA are you looing at the neutral citation.

    Anyhoo, have a lo0ok through here to see if it can help:
    http://denning.law.ox.ac.uk/published/oscola_2006.pdf
    http://libweb.anglia.ac.uk/guides/sk..._citations.php
    http://www.legalabbrevs.cardiff.ac.uk/
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    When it had CA after it I just thought this meant it was a Court of Appeal case? May be wrong though...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The official law reports come in four series:
    Appeal Cases (cited AC) - House of Lords decisions
    Queen's Bench reports (cited QB) - High Court Queen's Bench division decisions, and appeals from such decisions in the Court of Appeal
    Chancery (Ch) and Family (Fam) division reports work in the same way as for the Queen's Bench division.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lolimemma)
    When it had CA after it I just thought this meant it was a Court of Appeal case? May be wrong though...
    That's what I was thinking of: EWCA being the reference to which court the case was heard in, in the neutral citation.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Prudy)
    That's what I was thinking of: EWCA being the reference to which court the case was heard in, in the neutral citation.
    Yeah
    I'm quite ashamed that I'm 3rd year law and don't know for definite the answer to OP's question
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mja)
    The official law reports come in four series:
    Appeal Cases (cited AC) - House of Lords decisions
    Queen's Bench reports (cited QB) - High Court Queen's Bench division decisions, and appeals from such decisions in the Court of Appeal
    Chancery (Ch) and Family (Fam) division reports work in the same way as for the Queen's Bench division.

    Quoted for truth. This is correct.

    Citations are AC, QB (or KB for earlier cases), Ch and Fam
    Then WLR/All ER/Crim LR etc


    EWHC, EWCA, and UKHL are the neutral citations, and should only be used if the case is unreported and you are getting the transcript off something like BAILII
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lolimemma)
    Yeah
    I'm quite ashamed that I'm 3rd year law and don't know for definite the answer to OP's question
    Same here, but mja has it.-
    An offical report will look like:

    Rottman v MPC [2002] UKHL 20, [2002] 2 AC 692

    witht he underlined being the neutral citation and the bold being the refe3rence to the official law report (with AC being replaced with QB/Ch/Fam where appropriate.)

    Other reports will look like:
    Rottman v MPC [2002] UKHL 20, [2002] 2 WLR 1315

    With the bit in bold refering to the report used (Weekly Law Reports (as above), All ER (All England Law reports) etc....

    Hopwe thats now clear enough for the OP!
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    When writing out citations for a moot or a submission, you use only the law report citation and do not include the neutral citation. So the case:


    Rottman v MPC [2002] UKHL 20, [2002] 2 AC 692

    Would be correctly cited in a paper or moot as simply:

    Rottman v MPC [2002] 2 AC 692
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Thanks very much for the help everybody, that certainly cleared things up!

    I have another question. How would I say, in a moot, the following case:

    DPP (Jamaica) v Bailey?

    Do I say DPP or Director of Public Prosecutions?

    And, the case is usually just referred to as DPP v Bailey, so I don't think Jamaica is actually a part of the case name, rather it is just to say that it is a Jamaican case. So do I need to say the Jamaica bit? I would tell them that it is a Jamaican case anyway, and they will have the law report.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    It would be best to say

    "The Jamaican case of the Director of Public Prosecutions against Bailey"
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I'm pretty sure you're meant to say 'and' instead of 'against'. It's the Americans who use 'against'.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    I've used "against" in moots and haven't been corrected. I don't think anyone particularly cares.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I believe "against" is used correctly for criminal cases; otherwise "and" should be used.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: November 21, 2008
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?

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