Law and Fault
With reference to decided cases in any area(s) of law with which you are familiar, consider to what extent English law is concerned with the concept of fault in deciding issues of liability or guilt (30) In English civil and criminal law, liability is based on fault. Fault is therefore perhaps one of the most important concepts in law, as without it, it would be impossible for justice to be reached for the state, victim and wrongdoer. Fault determines the way the state will compensate the victim and punish the wrongdoer, and this essay will focus on the latter. The whole aim of criminal law is to punish those who have committed a crime against the state. The sanction imposed considers the sentencing aim and attempts to reflect society's revulsion at the crime. Fault is present if the appropriate actus reus and mens rea can be proved. A person cannot be found guilty unless both elements were present. The actus reus concerns all elements of the offence apart from the defendant's state of mind. This not only includes the prohibited physical act but also any omissions and causation issues. The actus reus must be committed voluntarily, as Professor Hart stated 'the principle that punishment should be restricted to those who have voluntarily broken the law ... is a requirement of justice'. Involuntary actions give way to the general defence of automatism, which concerns
Legal professions merger essay
Should the two-tier system of barristers and solicitors be merged into one? In this essay, I am going to attempt to conclude whether or not barristers and solicitors should become one profession in the UK... For the sake of argument, I will refer to the merged profession of barristers and solicitors as 'lawyer' and state the individual professions where necessary. I would start by analyzing the use of this idea in the US, where they have lawyers (or attorneys-at-law) instead of the separate professions. But after research, I understand the premise of how a court case is executed in the US is unlike how it's done in the UK. For that reason I conclude that the US system is not a good basis for comparison on this issue. Oral argument, to them, is a small addition to very extensively written "briefs." Here, the oral hearing is paramount. So, in that case, I will start by listing the advantages, and then the disadvantages of such a proposal. This I feel, will give me the best chance of making a judgement and concluding from there. First of all, cost and security... If we just had 'lawyers,' one would be able to stroll into a law firm and know they were just going to be dealing with those people. This should also mean that you can cut your expenses, as you won't have to pay extra for a barrister, on top of the money you're paying your solicitor. However, the new 'lawyers' could
(1) Describe the stages in qualifying as a solicitor (10 marks) (2) Describe & compare the work of a barrister, solicitor and legal executive (
(1) Describe the stages in qualifying as a solicitor (10 marks) (2) Describe & compare the work of a barrister, solicitor and legal executive (20 marks) There are many ways in which to qualify as a solicitor. There are three main routes. The quickest way is to have an A-level in law first which would take roughly up to two years, or something equivalent to that, the next stage to that would be to do a law degree, this also takes two-three years. The next step is to do the one year legal practise course. This would be followed by a two year training period. Once you have completed these four steps you have qualified as a solicitor. Usually this route takes 7 years altogether. The second route is where you have got an A-level (or equivalent) and you want to take a degree in another subject. If this is the case then you would have to take the common professional examination, which is a one year law course, then after that the legal practise course (is one year) and then do the two year training period and you would then qualify as a solicitor, this route would take at least nine years. The third route is the longest route in becoming a solicitor. If all you have is 4 GSCE's and want to qualify as a solicitor, then you have to do the exams of 'institute of legal executives' part one and two. After that you would have to work in solicitor's office for two years. From this you
'The work of a solicitor is quite different from that of a barrister' Outline the work of the two professions and consider whether this statement is accurate.
b)`The work of a solicitor is quite different from that of a barrister` Outline the work of the two professions and consider whether this statement is accurate. In the legal profession, there are two main categories of a lawyer. These two categories are barristers and solicitors. Between the two there are differences such as their training, their wages as well as their individual roles. In this essay, I will be discussing the different areas and how they differ. I will also compare them to each other and will analyse and evaluate them. To train as a barrister, you need a degree of at least at upper second class honors. If the degree is in law then the graduate can go onto the next stage of training. However, if the degree is in another subject than law, then the student must do a Common Professional Examination or then a Postgraduate Diploma in Law to go onto the next stage of training as a Barrister. This is known as the academic training. On the other hand, to train as a solicitor the graduate is needed to have a similar educational background to a barrister. It is essential to have a degree of some sort and by doing a Common Professional Examination (CPE), it provides general knowledge of the subject. This is handy as when the student goes and does their practical training, they are not shocked by what is going on. It provides a brief insight. During a barristers
judges and jury's
Describe the different roles of the judge and jury in a Crown Court trial. In England and Wales, serious criminal cases are tried "on indictment" by a judge and a jury in the Crown Court. The judge is a professional lawyer, but the jury consists of twelve men and women, with no previous connection with the case, chosen at random for this duty. The judge is responsible for matters of law and matters of procedure. Before the trial itself, the judge presides over a case management hearing to settle (with the lawyers) such matters as the expected length of the trial, the names of the witnesses to be called, any special facilities required such as video links or interpreters. If the defendant intends to plead guilty, of course, there is no need for a trial as such, and a date is set at once for a sentencing hearing. At the trial, the judge ensures that proper procedures are followed. Sometimes there are issues of law to be settled - the admissibility of particular evidence, for example, or the legal validity of a particular defence - and the judge rules on these matters as they arise. Occasionally, the judge may have to intervene to restore order in court or to ask a witness to clarify what she is saying, and where a defendant chooses to represent himself the judge ensures that he is given every chance to put his case and have it properly considered. The jury's role is to
Explain how judges may interpret the law and the intrinsic and extrinsic aids available to them.
Explain how judges may interpret the law. Judges can interpret the law throughstatutory interpretation, this means giving or finding meaning for statutes and applying it to the case in front of them. Statutory inteprretation is neded as acts can be outdated, ambiguous or confusing. There are 4 approaches to statutory interpretation including the litera rule, golden rule, misthcief rule and purposive approach. There are also intrinsic and extrinsic aids which may help judges to interpret the law. The literal rule is the first rule judges may use, this is when ambiguous words are given their natural and ordinary meaning within the act despite it possibly causing an absurd result. An example where the literal rule was used is in R v Berriman where a man died oiling trakcs but in order to claim compensation he must have been relaying or reparing. The golden rule can be sued if the literal rule provides an absurd outcome. The golden rule has a narrow and broad approach. The narrow approach is when the words have more than one meaning and the judge chooses the one which provides the least absurd outcome for example in Adler v George where the word ‘vicinity’ was ambiguous. The board approach si when there is only one meaning but it provides absirdidty so the judge modifies the meaning for example in Re Sigsworth where a son kiled his mother and was entitles toinheritance.
European law
In order to explain and evaluate the role and jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice1 I shall discuss the provisions of the European Community2 Treaty, which clearly provide for individuals to enforce rights derived from European Community law that are limited in their scope. This will be followed by the role of ECJ and how it has developed a number of principles that widen this scope. These are the doctrines of supremacy and direct effect, which are established to give individuals rights to enforce the European Union3 law. On the other hand, criticising the fact that that it restricts individuals rights in respect of challenging their decision. The European Union is a unique partnership in which many countries work closely together for the benefit of their citizens. Currently there are 27 member states of the EU, who have agreed to work collectively on issues such as common interest. The central purpose for the EC is to achieve a deeper economic and political integration, ('The ever closer union'). The EU desires for individuals to rely on the EU law in order to enclose uniformity hence enabling everyone to integrate in a common market. The common market, aims to increase a balanced growth on an economic and social level in respect of each member state. ECJ is one of the official institutions of the Community Treaty and plays a major part in the development
Law and Judicial creativity
'The rules of judicial precedent and statutory interpretation only appear to impose constraints on what judges may do. The truth is that judges can always find ways to develop the law in the directions they desire' Discuss the view quoted above. Include in your answer a comparison between the role of judges and that of Parliament in developing the law. Judicial precedent refers to judge made, or common, law. It operates on the principle of stare decisis, which means 'stand by the decision'. This is to ensure fairness and consistency in the law. Stare decisis is achieved by treating like cases alike and through the hierarchy of the courts, that is that lower courts are bound by the decision of higher courts. Statutory interpretation refers to saying exactly what the language of a statute means. It is up to the judges to apply statutes to current law and find Parliament's intention behind the Act. This is done through one of four approaches. As judges have to follow the principles of judicial precedent and statutory interpretation, it appears that there are constraints on what judges may do. However, several theories suggest otherwise perhaps because of the Practice Statement and the judges' choice of approaches when interpreting statutes. There are many theories of the importance of the judiciary and how judges exercise their power. Blackstone, an 18th century legal
Describe the training for both Barristers and Solicitors.
Describe the training for both Barristers and Solicitors. To become a solicitor or barrister the first stage is the academic stage. You can specialise and get a law degree which covers the 7 core topics over 3 years. The 7 topics are contract law, tort, public law which includes (constitutional, administrative and human rights law), criminal law, property law, equity and trusts and European Union law. This will lead to the vocational stage. If you have a non law degree then a 1 year Common Professionals examination (CPE) course in law which covers the 7 core topics must be taken. The fees for this are about 7000 pounds and this will lead to the vocational stage. If you are a non graduate and want to become a solicitor you must take the Institute of Legal Executive route and take exams part 1 and 2 as well as work in a solicitors firm for 5 years. To become a barrister you must take a 2 year CPE course in law. This will then lead you to the vocational stage. At the vocational stage if you are training to be a solicitor you must take a Legal Practice Course (LPC) which is a 1 year course full time and 2 years part time. The fees are around 10,000 pounds and you will learn skills such as advocacy, negotiation, interviewing and legal and procedural knowledge. If you are training to become a barrister you must take a Bar Professionals Training Course (BPTC). This course can be
Should the two legal professions amalgamate?
Should the two legal professions amalgamate? The English legal profession is atypical of the majority of the rest of the world due the fact that is divided. Unlike countries such as the USA where they have just one lawyer known as an 'attorney´, in England we have two different types solicitors and barristers, each with different roles and responsibilities within the system. The principal distinguishing factor between them is that solicitors primarily do the paperwork whereas the role of barristers is mainly concerned with advocacy. The profession has been separated in such a way ever since the nineteenth century as a result of an agreement with the Bar. Solicitors were given the job of direct client contact and the writing of all legal documents in exchange for barristers to have the exclusive rights of audience in the higher courts and eligibility to become senior judges. In spite of this over recent years there has been a sequence of changes resulting in gradual progression towards the merger of the two legal professions. The amalgamation of the two legal professions would have major repercussions and there are coherent arguments both for and against it. The most significant advantage for the general public is that it would be considerably cheaper; instead of having to pay for both a solicitor and a barrister, clients would only have to pay fees for one lawyer. Michael
