The Student Room Group

i.r.a.c method

Can somebody give me a good example of irac method in law ?I am writting and writting and in all honesty not sure if what im doing is any good !. I am totally new to law and not being TAUGHT of anyone so making it up as i go along !. ! its not surprising my results aint coming back so good .
Reply 1
I haven't done this for years - but this is how I would go about it. You really should put in more cases and better explanations than I do. I also always called it "CLEO".

Fred is out to a busy pub with his friend Jane. Fred goes to the bar and on the way back carrying drinks, accidentally nudges into Tony, spilling Tony's drink. Tony is angered by this and after Fred has walked past, throws a glass at Fred who has his back turned, which misses and hits Jane on the head, causing a cut to her scalp. Discuss any liability of any party for offences against the person.


C - Claim. We are going to be looking at assault offences. Fred nudges into Tony. Tony throws the glass at Fred. The glass hits Jane.

Fred & Tony

L - Law. Fred nudges into Tony. There is no indication that any injury was caused. It is not stated if Tony saw Fred, but it is reasonable that Tony didn't apprehend any force. As no injury was caused, this does not meet the standard of s.47 ABH - we are likely looking at a claim of common battery. In R v Ireland battery is defined as unlawful application of force.

E- Evaluation. There is no indication that Tony consented, and that Fred bumped into Tony the AR is complete. The MR for common battery is whether Fred intentionally or recklessly nudged Tony. This would depend on the circumstances of Fred carrying the drinks. Fred may have a defence from Collins v Willcock, where it was held that people impliedly consent to everyday jostling in crowded public places.

O - Outcome. Fred has complete AR for common battery, the MR is dependent on any subjectivity over any recklessness and he has strong defence of implied consent to battery at Collins.

Tony & Fred

L - Law. Tony throws a glass at Fred who has his back turned. Fred cannot see this happening and this does not meet the standard for common assault as Fred cannot apprehend the force. As Fred was not hit, there is no common battery. The injury resulting from throwing a glass may be that including black eyes, minor fractures and cuts. Tony may be liable for attempted ABH at s.47 or attempted GBH at s.20.

E - Evaluation. Tony has intentionally thrown the glass at Fred. Had this hit, the likely injury would have been that of s.47 ABH. The throwing of the glass is more than merely preparatory and meets the standard of attempted ABH at s.1 Criminal Attempts Act 1988.

O - Outcome. Fred would not appear to have a defence and would be guilty of attempted ABH. This would carry a penalty of the substantive offence, which is either way, but up to 5 years imprisonment on indictment.

Tony & Jane

L - Law - Tony has thrown the glass at Fred, but missed and hit Jane. The injuries sustained by Jane are consistent with s.47 ABH. Recklessness or transferred malice may apply.

E- Evaluation - Tony has thrown a glass in a crowded pub. Subjective recklessness is discussed at R v Parmenter and on the evidence, it would appear that Tony was reckless as to any injury to another. Further, in R v Latimer, the intention to harm one person was transferred to an unintended victim.

O - Outcome - Tony would be guilty of ABH on Jane, and does not appear to have a defence. ABH carries a penalty of up to 5 years imprisonment on indictment and Jane may be able to take a civil claim for her injuries.

Quick Reply