Discuss the problem of causation in criminal law and what rules have evolved to deal with the problem.
Discuss the problem of causation in criminal law and what rules have evolved to deal with the problem. Causation in its basest terms is simply the remoteness of the act from the crime. This in itself has caused many problems with regard to legal argument and also subsequent loopholes that appeared within the criminal law. It has been established over many years and tried cases, that there must be a clear and unbroken link, or chain of events, that links the defendant to the criminal act. The first and most important point to be considered is "would the act have occurred anyway?" This is often referred to as the "but for" test. In simplest terms this means would the consequence of the defendants act have occurred in the same way at the same time 'but for' the defendants actions. If the answer to this question is 'Yes' then the defendant is not guilty of that crime, R. v. White (1910). However, he may still be guilty of a different crime as with White. One question that has to be considered when looking at the question of causation is 'did the defendant actually commit the act?' If a criminal gets an innocent party to carry out the act of theft, does this exonerate him from prosecution? Surely if there is no actus reus then there is no crime. However, in R. v. Manley (1844) the courts felt otherwise and that a person will be guilty of the act even if an innocent
Contract Law - Offer And Acceptance
Contract Law Offer And Acceptance Contract Unilateral - Bilateral Contract Subjective-Objective Approach To An Agreement Offer Invitation To Treat Counter-offer Revocation Of Offer, Recall of Acceptance Acceptance Postal Rule-Limitation Contract Definition * Is an agreement between two or more parties that is intended to be legally binding (enforceable agreement) * Legally binding agreement needs of offer, acceptance, intention to create legal relations and consideration(difference between social agreement and legal agreement) * Is any promise or set of promises made by one party to another for the breach of which the law provides remedies * The remedies for the breach of contract is an award of monetary compensation, injunction, & specific performance(quantum meruit) Essential Element * The promise or promises may be express (either writing or oral) or may be implied from circumstances * Needs of writing is not essential for contract the Courts of US approved that as long as there is meeting of minds as though there is written, formal, signed contract then contract exists * However, for certain type of contract signed writing contract is needed (Statute of Fraud) * Mass production and nationalisation have led to the standard form contract * Freedom of contract is modified by some acts such as Consumer Credit Act 1974 & Unfair Contract Act
Judicial Precedent
Judicial precedent The doctrine of judicial precedent is based on the principle of stare decisis, meaning 'to stand by what has been decided'. Under this doctrine, legal decisions made by judges in higher courts set a precedent for judges in equal or lower courts to follow. For the system to operate successfully, three things are required: . a ratio decidendi 2. an accurate record of legal proceedings, otherwise known as law reports 3. a hierarchy of courts Ratio decidendi Ratio decidendi, meaning 'the reason for deciding', is the legal principle laid down in each case. It is given by the judge at the end of a case as the explanation of his/her decision. It is the ratio decidendi which must be followed in future cases of similar fact, this is what is meant by a binding precedent. For example, in R v Howe (1987) the defendant was found to be guilty of murder as his defence of duress which he had pleaded had been found unsubstantial by the House of Lords in a previous case of similar fact. However, judges do not always make it clear what the ratio decidendi of their decision is, judgements are not set out with clear headings. Therefore it is up to the person reading the judgement to determine what exactly the ratio decidendi is. Also in the appeal courts, the decision is made by more than one judge. Even if all the judges reach the same decision they may have arrived at
Critically discuss different possible meanings of justice and explore the relationship between law and justice
Critically discuss different possible meanings of justice and explore the relationship between law and justice? (30+5 marks) As Lord Wright commented there is not satisfactory definition of justice. What is considered just in a particular case is what appears just by a just man. Similarly, the thing that appears reasonable to a reasonable man would be considered as reasonable. However, some people may see justice as applying the same rules in the same manner to all people. In other words, treating like cases alike. But then again, this could also lead injustice. Because people have varied definitions of justice, the issues of fairness and equality help support the concept. This shows the link between law and justice. However, it helps identify miscarriages of justice where people are wrongly convicted of criminal offences. Aristotle who was an ancient Greek philosopher, was one of the first to put forward his view. His theory was that a just law is one that would enable people to fulfil themselves in society. Meaning the law should promote justice. This made him differentiate the concept into two types; distributive and corrective justice. Distributive justice is the allocation of assets with the ideal of achieving proportion according to each individuals claim. In other words, all benefits and burdens should be distributed fairly. On
police powers
Police Powers Questions Q1. Describe the powers of the police to stop and search on the street. And to conduct further searches at the police station. If you are stopped you'll first be asked where you're going and what you've been doing. The police may then decide to search you but only if they have a good reason, for example, that you fit the profile of a criminal seen in the area, or they think you're acting suspiciously. But it is not reasonable to stop and search on the basis of race, dress, or previous convictions. If subsequently you are searched it will take place on the street. If you are asked to remove more than your coat and gloves, or anything you wear for religious reasons, they must take you somewhere out of public view. The police can also search your vehicle. If you're carrying something illegal, such as a weapon, or the police believe you've committed a crime, you may be arrested. You don't have to give your name, address or date of birth to the police if you're stopped and searched unless you're being arrested. They can arrest anyone who is about to commit and offence, who is in the act of committing an offence, or whom he has reasonable ground of suspecting to be committing an offence. If you have been arrested, because you were caught committing an offence; or there is a warrant for your arrest, you will then be taken to a police station. Here you will
Reform of the law on murder.The law commission say it is rickety structure set on shaky foundations and is in dire need of reform. The whole offence as an overview is complex, unclear, uncertain and unfair.
Reform of Murder Murder is a common law offence which is interpreted by the courts. The current common law offence was defined by coke in the 17th century and still exists today. It also doesn't allow for any differentiation between different kinds of killing. Which now, there are many different types of killings such as serial killings, euthanasia, mercy killings etc and therefore the law should adapt to support this. The law commission say it is "rickety structure set on shaky foundations" and is "in dire need of reform". The whole offence as an overview is complex, unclear, uncertain and unfair. In regards to the actus reus, there are some problems with many aspects including cokes definition of "unlawful killing of a human being". First, for the term "human being", it is a bit confusing into what counts as life, and what counts as death in regards to murder. The term "life" is defined in AG ref (NO3 1994) as being from when you are born and breathing independently from the mother. However, for death there is no legal definition, only a medical one of "brain stem" death Malcherek and steel. It doesn't seem to make sense that there is a legal definition for life but not for death, there should be a legal definition for both. In regards to "unlawful killing", this is an issue of causation. There are different opinions on the way self neglect such as in the case Dear
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
What is the meaning of intention in English criminal law? Is it always possible to distinguish between intention and motive?
What is the meaning of intention in English criminal law? Is it always possible to distinguish between intention and motive? The law generally requires that the accused possess a 'blameworthy' state of mind at the time the act comprising the offence was committed, and the basic presumption is that mens rea is required for every offence ('actus non fit reus nisi mens sit rea'), authority for which stems from Sherras v De Rutzen [1895] - "There is a presumption that mens rea ... is an essential ingredient in every offence; but that presumption is liable to be displaced either by the words of the statute creating the offence or by the subject matter with which it deals, and both must be considered." This proposition, that mens rea is the default position for an offence unless its implication is clearly outweighed by other factors, was secured in Sweet v Parsley [1970]. Per Lord Reid: "it is universal principle that if a penal provision is reasonably capable of two interpretations, that interpretation which is most favourable to the accused must be adopted." Thus the requirement of intention is presumed where a matter is uncertain. However, many statutes do not use the language of 'knowingly' or 'intentionally' acting; in the case of such strict liability offences, usually regulatory offences without the "disgrace of criminality"1, there is no element of intent whatsoever for
Briefly explain what is meant by the doctrine of judicial precedent.
Briefly explain what is meant by the doctrine of judicial precedent. (10 Marks) Judicial precedent refers to the sources of law where past decisions made by judges create law for future judges to follow. The English system of precedent is based on stare decisis, which translated from Latin loosely means "To stand by what has been decided". Stare decisis provides fairness and certainty in the law. It is divided into two parts: ratio decidendi and obiter dicta. Ratio decidendi are the principles of law that a judge has used to come to the decision at the end of a case, which is outlined in his speech. Ratio decidendi loosely means "Any rule expressed or implied by the judge as a necessary step in reaching his conclusion". Obiter dicta refers to "the other things said" by the judges and does not have to be followed by future judges. An example of this may include what the judge's decision would have been if the facts were different but does not have to followed as it is not binding precedent. It is often difficult to distinguish between ratio decidendi and obiter dicta as the judgement is usually in a continuous form, without any headings specifying what is ratio decidendi and what is not. Original precedent is a new legal rule established through a case decision. Binding precedent must be followed by the court and persuasive precedent does not have to be followed but can be
How satisfactory is the current law of murder?
How satisfactory is the current law of murder? During this essay the law of murder will need to be analysed and assessed in order to answer the question of it's current state. Whilst analysing the law of murder the Actus Reus and the Mens Rea along with any other problems will need to be dealt with. However we need to realise what the law of murder is and how it came into affect. Murder is a special law as it is a common law offence or rather a judge made law. What this means is that the law has been made over the years when cases arise. Due to this the law has been improvised and changed through the years due to the circumstances. Most pieces of legislation are acts of parliament that are produced by the parliament (House of Lords, House of Commons and the Queen), however judges have made this piece of legislation. The law of murder first can be claimed to be unsatisfactory or misleading due to the very fact that it is judge made law. This causes problems, as there are no guidelines to stick to, this led to many different outcomes occurring when sentencing and the law being called overcomplicated. There are so many cases that can be used when a murder offence arises this is due to the fact that judges made different decisions when sentencing and also the fact that the needs of the modern or present day needed to be met. The law of murder also carries a mandatory life
