Applied Law

Actus Reus

A guilty act. To cause a person to apprehend immediate unlawful force (R v Ireland)

1 of 64

Mens Rea

A guilty mind. To intentionally or recklessly cause apprehension (Moloney) or (Cunningham)

2 of 64

Mitigating Factors

Pleading guilty, showing remorse, offering compensation, mental illness

3 of 64

Aggravating Factors

Not pleading guilty, previous convictions, planned crime, racially/religiously motivated

4 of 64

Aims of sentencing

Rehabilitation, deterrence (discouraging others from committing crime), reparation (giving back to victim), protection of public, retribution of offender

5 of 64

Types of sentencing

Rehabilitation, fine, imprisonment, community orders

6 of 64

2 Courts that deal with Civil Law

High Court and County Court

7 of 64

Standard of Proof

On the balance of probabilities of 51%

8 of 64

Outcome in Court for Civil Law

Liable (guilty) or not liable (not guilty)

9 of 64

Civil Process: Alternative Dispute Resolution

Resolving a dispute without going to court

10 of 64

Negotiation

Solving dispute directly (DIY method) as it's cheaper and quicker

11 of 64

Mediation

Involves 3rd person acting as referee but does not solve dispute

12 of 64

Concilliation

Involves 3rd person suggesting ways of solving dispute through Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Services

13 of 64

Arbitration

Witness chooses legal professional (Arbitrator) within field of dispute

14 of 64

3 factors for Tort of Negligence

Duty, Breach, Damage

15 of 64

Duty

First established in Donoghue v Stevenson. Lord Aktin developed 'neighbour principle'

16 of 64

Development of Duty

Capuro v Dickman case established 3 stage test for Duty; 1) Reasonably foreseeable 2) Sufficient legal or physical proximity 3) Fair, just, and reasonable

17 of 64

Reasonably foreseeable

Langley v Dray or contrasting case Bournhill v Young

18 of 64

Physical proximity and Legal proximity

Physical (Smolden v Whitworth) Legal (Grant v Aus Knitt Mill)

19 of 64

Fair, just, and reasonable

Courts must decide to impose a duty based on impact of future cases (Mulcahy v MOD)

20 of 64

Breach

Tested using the 'reasonable man' test when a person commits/fails to commit an act that falls below the 'standard of care' expected (Bylth v Waterworks CO)

21 of 64

SoC expected from children

Standard expected of the child's age (Mullins v Richard)

22 of 64

SoC expected from learners

Standard expected of a professional in that area (Nettleship v Wesson)

23 of 64

SoC expected from professionals

Standard expected of a competent professional body in that area (Bolam v Friern)

24 of 64

Risk factors that may affect breach

Characteristics (Paris v Stepney), likelihood (Bolton v Stone) or contrasting (Miller v Jackson), reasonable precautions (Latimer v AEC), and social utilities (Watt v Hertfordshire)

25 of 64

Two parts to Damage

Factual Causation and Legal Causation

26 of 64

Factual

Factual Causation (using the 'but for' test. Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital)

27 of 64

Legal

Legal Causation under 'remoteness of damage' principle (D is liable if type of damage is foreseeable) Wagon Mound

28 of 64

Type of damage caused

If the type of damage caused is foreseeable, the precise form does not have to be foreseen (Bradford v Robinson Rentals

29 of 64

Thin Skull Rule

Take your victim as you find them. If the C has any medical issues that affect negligence, D is still responsible. (Smith v Leech Brain)

30 of 64

Intervening Act

May break the chain of causation (Knightly v Johns) If there are two acts that cause damage, the second act breaks the chain and is liable

31 of 64

Two types of Damages

General and Special

32 of 64

General Damages

Losses that cannot be financially quantified EG Pain, suffering

33 of 64

Special Damages

Losses that can be financially quantified EG Travel expenses, repairs, loss of earnings

34 of 64

Two types of General Damages

Pecuniary (Involves money) and Non-pecuniary (Does not involve money)

35 of 64

Heads of damage

Loss of amenity (Morris v Johnson), pain and suffering (using tariff from JSB), injury (listed in Kemp and Kemp), expenses and damage (Povey v Povey), loss of earnings

36 of 64

Calculation for future loss of earnings

Multiplicand (money earned per year) x multiplier (years left to work) max 18 years (Doyle v Wallis)

37 of 64

Lump sum

All damages paid as one sum

38 of 64

Structured settlement

Paid over period of time 1) Lump sum payment 2) Regular monthly payments 3) Further lump sum to cover contingencies

39 of 64

Contributory negligence

If C contributed to injury, % will be taken away from damages (Sayers v Harlow)

40 of 64

Res Ispa Loquitor

The thing speaks for itself, D has to prove he was not negligent if C cannot prove it but there is evidence (Scott v London and St Katherine Docks)

41 of 64

RIL proven in 3 steps

1) D has control (Gee v Met Railway CO) or contrasting (Easson v LNER) 2) Accident would not have happened if proper care was taken (Ward v Tesco) 3) Cause is unknown (Pearson v North West Gas Board)

42 of 64

Statutory Interpretation

The way in which judges decide the meaning of words in Acts of Parliament

43 of 64

Literal Rule

Natural dictionary meaning used from that period of time (Fisher v Bell-Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act)

44 of 64

Golden Rule

Judge looks beyond the literal meaning if it leads to absurdity

45 of 64

Narrow Approach

Word has more than one meaning so apply fairest meaning (R v Allen)

46 of 64

Broad Approach

Word has one meaning but applying it would be absurd so court modify it (RE Sigworth)

47 of 64

Mischief Rule

Court looks at formal law to find what "mischief" the Act wanted to remedy. Formed in Heydon's case. (Smith v Hughes-Street Offences Act)

48 of 64

Purposive Approach

Looks for purpose of Act to give Court wider scope (Jones v Tower Boot CO-Race Relations Act)

49 of 64

Delegated Legislation

Law made by body other than Parliament with authority under a 'Parent' or 'Enabling' Act

50 of 64

Orders in Council

Made by the Monarch and Privy Council, do not have to go through Parliament

51 of 64

By Laws

Made by local authorities to cover own area matters

52 of 64

Statutory Instruments

Made by Government Ministers with responsibility in law areas EG Education Reform Act

53 of 64

Judicial Controls

Courts set out control to prevent Delegated Legislation going beyond control

54 of 64

6 types of Judicial Controls

1) Enabling Act 2) Scrutiny Committee 3) Affirmative Resolution (Becomes law within 40 days) 4) Negative Resolution (Becomes law within 40 days if P do not vote) 5) Super Affirmative Resolution (Ministers can change Act) 6) Questions

55 of 64

4 EU Law making bodies

1) Council of the EU 2) The European Committee 3) The EU Parliament 3) The European Court of Justice

56 of 64

Council of EU

Main body. Government of each member state represent council, meet twice a year to discuss matters

57 of 64

European Commission

28 commissioners from each member state, each lead a specialist department

58 of 64

European Parliament

No direct power but discuss proposals and passes laws

59 of 64

European Court of Justice

28 judges, ensure law is applied and interpret the Treaty (prefer the Purposive Approach)

60 of 64

Treaties

Formal agreement between countries. If signed by UK, become English law (Macarthys v Smith)

61 of 64

Regulations

Binding and have direct effect (Re Tachographs: Commission v UK)

62 of 64

Directives

Each state can decide how the law should be introduced to their own country (Francovich v Italian Republic)

63 of 64

4 types of pressure groups

1)Sectional (interest of members-Trade Union) 2)Outsider (no access to law makers-Motor Cycle Action Group) 3)Insider (access to law makers-MENCAP) 4)Cause (interest in belief or idea-RSPCA)

64 of 64

Get Revising

Applied Law

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Back

Card 3

Front

Back

Card 4

Front

Back

Card 5

Front

Back

Comments

Similar Law resources:

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Back

Card 3

Front

Back

Card 4

Front

Back

Card 5

Front

Back

Comments

Related discussions on The Student Room

Similar Law resources: