Discuss the extent to which discrimination is prohibited under English and Welsh law (25 marks)

Discuss the extent to which discrimination is prohibited under English and Welsh law (25 marks) Article 14 of the European convention on Human rights protects individuals from discrimination. Traditionally English law has intervened to control discrimination in a very limited way, it is initially applied only to the areas of race and sex and only in relation to discrimination for certain purposes. E.g. they targeted race discrimination after WW2 when we had significant immigration from the commonwealth. Whereas the coverage is much larger today and broadly apply to employment discrimination, housing, education and the provision of services. The English law previously provided no remedy against unjustifiable discrimination, therefore in Applin v Race Relations Board (1975) Lord Simon referred to the "unbridled capacity to discriminate" at common law. This was in line with the traditional civil liberties in Britain and the view that an individual could do anything that the law does not prohibit. Therefore if sexual discrimination were to be tackled legislation would have to be passed. The First but limited attempt to prevent racial discrimination was the Race Relations Act 1965 which was later followed by the Race Relations Act 1968 which had a wider scope and extended this prevention of discrimination in law into further areas. On the other hand in areas such as sex

  • Ranking:
  • Word count: 2225
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

Taking selected areas of the civil and or criminal law, evaluate whether sportsmen and women are treated differently from the general public in proceedings that have their origin on the field of play.

Sports Assignment Question 2 Taking selected areas of the civil and or criminal law, evaluate whether sportsmen and women are treated differently from the general public in proceedings that have their origin on the field of play. Answer Sport plays a major part in the culture of today's society. Many people spend considerable time in front of the television, in sports grounds and traveling all over the country to support their respective club whether it be football, rugby, cricket or netball etc. However whilst playing, spectating or just generally being involved in a sport, things can go wrong and this very often results in an action in the civil or criminal courts. Sporting incidents should be dealt with like any other civil or criminal action, however there is evidence this is not happening in many cases in both areas of law. There can be several areas of civil law where claims can be made. These are Negligence, occupier's liability, defamation, nuisance, trespass and animals. However not all these will need to be looked at, the main ones being Negligence and occupiers liability. It is in the area of negligence that I will look at the sporting cases and how they differ from non - sporting cases of civil wrongs. I will be looking at participators, clubs, referees and spectators. In the second section I will be looking at negligence and injuries in football and how

  • Ranking:
  • Word count: 5505
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay

"The Nedrick/Woolin direction on intention manages to produce a clear distinction between intention and recklessness - Explain and discuss.

"The Nedrick/Woolin direction on intention manages to produce a clear distinction between intention and recklessness. However, such clarity carries the price of both (a) not being able to convict people who ought to be regarded as having the culpability for murder and (b) unjust convictions for murder." Explain and discuss. Nedrick1 updated the law surrounding intention by constructing a model direction which states that a jury should be directed by the judge 'that they are not entitled to infer the necessary intention, unless they feel sure that death or serious bodily harm was a virtual certainty (barring some unforeseen intervention) as a result of the defendant's actions and that the defendant realised that such was the case'2 Woollin3 extended the verdict given in Nedrick after the 'entitled to infer' intention on the part of the jury was updated to 'entitled to find' by the judges in the Woollin case. Woollin upheld Nedrick's test after the House of Lords stated that the trial judge enlarged the scope of the mental element required for murder and had misdirected the jury. The trial judge told the jury that a 'substantial risk' as to the consequences was only required to infer intention, but the House of Lords declared that the consequences have to be (a) virtually certain and (b) known to be of virtual certainty by the defendant for a conviction of murder to be

  • Ranking:
  • Word count: 1464
  • Level: AS and A Level
  • Subject: Law
Access this essay