Home > All categories

All categories

Question: Actus non facit reum, nisi mens rea (an act does not make a person legally liable unless the mind is legally blameworthy). Explain the meaning and importance of this maxim by reference to decided cases.

Answer: Actus non facit reum, nisi mens rea is the maxim that constitutes the basis for defining the two elements that must be proved before a person can be convicted of a crime....


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 66% | Course: Criminal Law | Year: 1st | Words: 1595 | References: No | Date written: Not available | Date submitted: February 18, 2009 | Coursework ID: 294

Question: Adjustments to the Constitution of the United Kingdom are needed to face the various challenges of the 21st century.

Evaluate any four constitutional reforms undertaken in the United Kingdom to face the challenges of the 21st century. Draw a comparison with the position in Malaysia.

Answer: Constitution is a set of rules which governs an organization. Turpin defined constitution as ‘a set of rules, conventions and practices which regulate and qualify the organization and the operation of the...


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: Not available | Course: Constitutional and Administrative Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 3521 | References: Yes | Date written: December, 2012 | Date submitted: January 28, 2015 | Coursework ID: 898

Question: Advance Directives to Refuse Treatment

With reference to any topic we have covered in the law module, identify an area of law of interest to you and critically evaluate it, demonstrating your understanding of its purpose and application, merits and deficiencies, with your proposals, if any, for reform.

Answer: This essay argues that Advance Decisions to Refuse Treatment (ADRTs) are currently in no man’s land between a legally binding decision and a starting point for discussing patients’ best interests. The essay...


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: Not available | Course: Medical Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 2498 | References: Yes | Date written: January, 2014 | Date submitted: May 08, 2014 | Coursework ID: 874

Question: Advanced EU – Presentation, Publishers Association v. Commission (1995)

Answer: The Case I have chosen to discuss is: Publishers Association v. Commission (1995). The case was decided in January 1995 and was an appeal from the judgement of the court of first...


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 70% | Course: European Union Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 2721 | References: No | Date written: January, 1999 | Date submitted: February 16, 2009 | Coursework ID: 228

Question: ADVOCACY - BAIL APPLICATION (Oral assessment)

Answer: May it please you Sir; My name is XXXX XXXXX and I appear on behalf of Mr ADAMS. I would like now to make an application for my client to be remanded...


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 68% | Course: Legal Practice Course | Year: Graduate | Words: 799 | References: No | Date written: February, 2002 | Date submitted: February 16, 2009 | Coursework ID: 230

Question: ADVOCACY - PLEA IN MITIGATION - MRS MARY SMITH (Oral assessment)

Answer: May it please you sir; I would like now to address you in mitigation on behalf of Mrs Smith. Sir, the defendant accepts the seriousness of this offence and fully admits her...


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 69% | Course: Legal Practice Course | Year: Graduate | Words: 600 | References: No | Date written: March, 2003 | Date submitted: February 16, 2009 | Coursework ID: 213

Question: ADVOCACY SUMMATIVE ESSAY - WRITTEN SUBMISSION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (Civil Division)
B E T W E E N:
IGNITE FIREWORKS PLC
V.
JILL HILL
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADVOCACY SUMMATIVE ESSAY - WRITTEN SUBMISSION 67%
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. SUMMARY OF FACTS
Jack and Jill Hill was a married couple but have had marital problems. After months of disagreement Jack moved out of the family home in July 2014 and into a rented accommodation. Jack maintained his job at Ignite Fireworks PLC.

On 03/10/2014 due to an electrical fault at Ignite Fireworks PLC a number of fireworks in containers detonated resulting in an explosion. Jack who was completing a nightshift was trapped in the premises.

Mr Spratt the site manager raised the alarms, contacted emergency services and contacted Jill who was still Jack’s emergency contact.

Jill initially assumed that Jack was involved in a minor incident. Arriving on scene at 7am, she witnessed numerous fire engines and ambulances. At the emergency triage area Jack had received emergency treated and was covered by a blanket, only his singed hair, blackened face, burnt hand and a tube inserted into his throat was visible. Witnessing this cause Jill to break down and weep and shake uncontrollably. Jack was transferred to Midlands Hospital where he stabilised. Jill remained at his side for the entire week before he was discharged and returned to his family home.

Subsequently Jill brought about a claim for negligently inflicted psychiatric harm as she displayed Post-traumatic stress disorder and suffered frequent flash backs of the scene.

The Trial Judge Lean found the following facts, (i) Jill had suffered a medically recognised psychiatric disorder from nervous shock, (ii) When Jill first saw Jack, he was in a controlled state and was not being treated, (iii) Jack and Jill subsequently divorced.

Judge Lean found that Jill could recover as secondary victim on the grounds that, as spouse it was clear that she had a close tie of love and affection with Jack and arriving at the factory Jill had witnessed the immediate aftermath and was therefore proximate to the accident in time and space.
The case is being appealed by Ignite Fireworks PLC in the court of appeal.

2. GROUND OF APPEAL
As there was a two and a half hour time delay between the time of the accident and Jill seeing Jack, having been treated and in a controlled state, it cannot be said that Jill had witnessed the immediate aftermath of the accident.

3. APPELLANT OUTCOME
The appeal to succeed.

4. RESPONDENT OUTCOME
The appeal to be dismissed.

Answer: The Law at present The law on the recovery of compensation for pure psychiatric harm is in a state of disarray, as Lord Steyn mentions that the law in this area “is...


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 67% | Course: Tort Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 3471 | References: No | Date written: January, 2014 | Date submitted: May 05, 2015 | Coursework ID: 922

Question: Agreed Remedies Case Study

Sorry Case Study Scenario Content Not Available

Answer: Under the terms of the aforementioned contract, Greengrow Ltd (G) is obliged to return the four tractors to Farmbank plc (F) upon breach. G is also obliged to pay the outstanding rent...


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: Not available | Course: Contract Law | Year: 2nd/3rd | Words: 2003 | References: Yes | Date written: Not available | Date submitted: May 01, 2013 | Coursework ID: 790

Question: AIRCRAFT LAW - LIABILITY Explore the problems regarding aircraft liability in the international realm.

Answer: The problems regarding aircraft liability in the international realm primarily relate to resolving issues of legal status of international airline passengers and cargo. The issues are defined as follows: sovereignty over airspace,...


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 64% | Course: International Law | Year: 1st | Words: 948 | References: Yes | Date written: January, 1999 | Date submitted: February 16, 2009 | Coursework ID: 231

Question: Alan decides to protest against NHS reforms by placing a firebomb in his local hospital. He spends some time working on the bomb to ensure that there will be a delay before it is detonated, so that he can phone in a warning and allow time to evacuate the hospital. Having hidden the bomb in the hospital, he then decides not to ring the police to warn them about the bomb.

The firebomb goes off. Evan is badly burnt in the fire. He is taken to a neighbouring hospital and requires a blood transfusion. Evan has an intense fear of blood, for which he was receiving psychiatric care before the bombing. He refuses the blood transfusion, and dies.

Doris, a member of staff is present when the fire starts. Doris runs away, leaving behind a young child, Toby, who she was treating, because she can’t be bothered to carry him. Toby is severely injured in the blaze. He is kept on life support, unconscious, for six months before doctors decide to discontinue life support, whereupon he dies.

Advise Alan and Doris on their liability for murder. Mark 70%

Answer: To determine their liability for murder, the prosecution needs to establish whether Alan and Doris had the actus reus and mens rea for murder and that these coincided in time. The actus...


Read more of the answer →

Details: - Mark: 70% | Course: Criminal Law | Year: 1st | Words: 1431 | References: Yes | Date written: November, 2016 | Date submitted: April 19, 2017 | Coursework ID: 1020


Page 4 of 103« 1 2 3 45 6 7 »

New user?

Registering is fast
and easy

Welcome back

Gain access

  1. Register with us
  2. Pay for instant access
  3. Or submit 3 pieces
    of your work for
    free access

Categories

Adobe Reader is required to access all coursework & essays. (pdf)
PayPal handles payments on our behalf. All major credit cards and currencies accepted.
A PayPal account is not nessesary.