A 26-page student Handout which represents everything students need to know about Substantive, Procedural Justice and Equity. Written by an experienced Examiner and delivered to his classes successfully over many years. The document explores various aspects of justice, including substantive and procedural justice, equity, and the role of judicial review in holding public bodies accountable. Substantive Justice: Substantive justice examines the content of laws and measures them against fundamental principles like fairness and morality. Equity in Law: Equity fills gaps in common law by providing remedies where common law is insufficient, as illustrated by historical cases and principles. Equitable Remedies: Equitable remedies include freezing injunctions, search orders, and orders of specific performance, which compel defendants to act or refrain from certain actions. Case Study: Ryan Giggs: Ryan Giggs sought an injunction to prevent the publication of private information, highlighting the complexities and breaches of such orders. Case Study: Tinsley v Milligan: The case illustrates the tension between equitable ownership and illegal actions, with the House of Lords ruling in favor of Milligan despite her fraudulent behavior. Damages in Civil Law: Damages aim to restore the claimant’s financial position, with special and general damages addressing specific and non-specific losses respectively. Judicial Review: Judicial review allows courts to assess the lawfulness of public body decisions, serving as a critical check on governmental power. Controversy Over Judicial Review Reforms: Proposed reforms to judicial review have sparked debate, with critics arguing that they undermine the ability to hold the government accountable.

This is an introduction to the complex topic of Law and Justice. It is designed to be distributed to students and it includes questions and activities and also provides a “model answer” to a common question on the topic. The Handout is structured as follows: Definitions of Justice: Justice is associated with fairness, equality, and the proper administration of the law, with various perspectives provided by philosophers like Aristotle, Bentham, Rawls, and Nozick. Aristotle’s View: Aristotle divides justice into distributive justice, concerning the fair allocation of resources, and corrective justice, dealing with rectifying wrongs. Bentham’s Utilitarian Approach: Bentham’s utilitarian idea of justice aims to achieve the greatest happiness for the greatest number, though it has limitations. Rawls’s Theory: Rawls emphasizes fairness and equality, focusing on protecting the least advantaged members of society. Nozick’s Conservative View: Nozick offers a conservative alternative, focusing on individual rights and the minimal state. Case Studies: Several case studies illustrate the complexities of achieving justice, highlighting issues such as disproportionate punishments and the ethical implications of severe penalties. Barriers to Justice: Barriers include the unrepresentative legal profession, limited access to legal advice and representation, and biases in the administration of justice. Legal Theories’ Insights: Legal theories provide insights into the relationship between law and justice, with various definitions highlighting different dimensions like formal/procedural justice and substantive justice.

FREE resource A summary table of the non-fatal offences in English Law written by an experienced examiner in Law and used with countless classes across the years. Invaluable for students and teachers at any level who are studying this vital component. If you have found this resource useful, why not take a look at my other, ever-growing collection, of law resources. All designed to save busy teachers time and effort. Why reinvent the wheel?!

A short Handout and questions on the law on Diminished Responsibility written by an experienced examiner of Law and delivered to my own students across many cohorts and students. This 7-page Handout is all that you need to teach and study Diminished Responsibility. The Handout is structured as follows: Definition and Legal Basis. Application in Trials: A defendant cannot be charged with voluntary manslaughter directly; it is a verdict the jury may reach if the defense of diminished responsibility is successfully pleaded during a murder trial. Criteria for Diminished Responsibility: To qualify for diminished responsibility, the defendant must prove an abnormality of mental functioning arising from a recognized medical condition that substantially impaired their ability to understand their conduct, form rational judgments, or exercise self-control. Impact of the Defence. Case Law Examples: Several cases illustrate the application of diminished responsibility, including BYRNE, where a sexual psychopath’s conviction was reduced to manslaughter, and LUC THIET THUAN, where a head injury did not qualify as a recognized medical condition. Substantial Impairment: The defence requires that the abnormality of mental functioning substantially impair the defendant’s abilities, such as understanding their conduct or forming rational judgments, as seen in the GITTENS case. Challenges in Application: Juries sometimes disregard the defense of diminished responsibility, as seen in the SUTCLIFFE case, where the defendant was convicted of murder despite evidence of mental abnormality. An invaluable set of notes for anyone studying this vital concept in Law.

This is a Handout on the Law of Murder, written by an experienced examiner and used over many years with my students. It is a short introduction to the topic and is an invaluable aid for AS and A Level students of the subject. It is 7-pages long and it is estimated that it would take about 60-minutes of teaching time. There are questions and exercises throughout. The Handout is structured as follows: Definition and Jurisdiction of Murder: Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of a reasonable person under the Queen’s peace with malice aforethought, and British citizens can be charged with murder committed in any country. Actus Reus Elements: The actus reus of murder includes four elements: D killed, a reasonable creature in being, under the Queen’s Peace, and the killing was unlawful. The document primarily focuses on the first element. Importance of Causation: For murder, it is crucial to prove that D’s act or omission caused the death of V, with examples like Gibbins v Proctor illustrating how omissions can fulfill actus reus. Reasonable Person in Being: The term refers to a human being, with complexities arising in cases involving a foetus or brain-dead individuals. Unlawful Killing: Killing is unlawful unless it is in self-defence, defence of another, or prevention of crime with reasonable force. Mens Rea for Murder: Murder requires specific intent, meaning the jury must be convinced of an intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm, as illustrated in cases like Vickers and Swift. Indirect or Oblique Intention: Issues arise when D’s primary aim is different from causing death or serious injury, but death results, requiring examination of indirect intention. An invaluable introduction to murder for any students of the subject!

An excellent Handout for students of AS and A Level Law which revises General Defences in English Law. The Worksheets are best used with the accompanying resource: General Defences in English Law. This 9-page Handout consists of: Defences and Burden of Proof: The document includes a table to complete, showing the defences (automatism, consent, duress, insanity, intoxication, self-defense) and the burden of proof for each. Automatism and Insanity: It discusses the differences between non-insane automatism and self-induced automatism, and the principal difference between automatism and insanity. Duress and Intoxication: The document poses true or false questions about duress and intoxication, referencing various cases such as Graham, Cole, Bowen, Abdul Hussain, and others to illustrate key legal principles. Case Scenarios: Several scenarios are given for analysis, asking which defences might be appropriate and assessing the likelihood of success for each defence. An excellent resource Worksheet for any students and teachers of Law.

Complete Handout/Worksheet on General Defences in English Law. Written by an experienced Law examiner and used many times in classes of my own, obtaining excellent results. This is a 25-page workbook which includes questions and highlighted key points and cases. There is an accompanying Worksheet of review questions in addition to this Worksheet. Here’s a summary of the document: The document provides an overview of various general defences in English law, including Automatism, Insanity, Duress, Intoxication, Consent, and Self-Defense/Prevention of Crime. Automatism: Automatism is divided into non-insane and self-induced automatism. Insanity: Insanity is governed by the M’Naghten Rules, which require proving a defect of reason caused by a disease of the mind, leading to a lack of understanding of the nature and quality of the act or its wrongfulness. Duress: Duress involves committing a crime under the threat of death or serious bodily harm. Intoxication: Intoxication can be a defense for specific intent crimes if it prevents the formation of mens rea. Consent: Consent is generally not a defense for causing actual bodily harm, except in cases of implied consent in sports or medical procedures. Self-Defense/Prevention of Crime: Self-defense allows the use of reasonable force to protect oneself, others, or property. Automatism vs. Insanity: The distinction between automatism and insanity often lies in whether the cause is external (automatism) or internal (insanity), leading to different legal outcomes. Duress by Threats vs. Duress of Circumstances: Duress by threats involves direct threats forcing D to commit a crime, while duress of circumstances involves committing a crime to avoid imminent harm. Voluntary vs. Involuntary Intoxication: Voluntary intoxication is self-induced and generally not a defense for basic intent crimes, while involuntary intoxication can be a defense if it negates mens rea. Proportionality in Self-Defence: The use of force in self-defense must be reasonable and proportional to the threat; excessive force invalidates the defence. An excellent resource for any AS or A Level Law student.

This is a teacher’s and student Handout which covers the entire topic of Involuntary Manslaughter. It is an ivaluable guide to the subject for any AS or A Level student and is also suitable for someone studying Access to Law or similar courses. It is 20 pages long with an estimated delivery time of around 4 hours. This is a summary of the document: The document provides a detailed overview of involuntary manslaughter, distinguishing between Unlawful Act Manslaughter and Gross Negligence Manslaughter, and examining various legal cases to illustrate the principles involved. Definition and Distinction: Involuntary manslaughter occurs when the defendant (D) has the actus reus for murder but lacks the necessary mens rea, meaning D did not intend to kill or cause serious harm. Types of Involuntary Manslaughter: There are two types: Unlawful Act Manslaughter and Gross Negligence Manslaughter. Unlawful Act Manslaughter: This type involves causing death while carrying out a dangerous criminal act. It must be proven that the act was unlawful, dangerous, caused the death, and that D had the mens rea for the act. Case Examples for Unlawful Act Manslaughter: Cases such as Lamb, Goodfellow, and Mitchell illustrate the principles of Unlawful Act Manslaughter, showing how the act must be unlawful and dangerous, and how causation is established. Gross Negligence Manslaughter: This type involves a breach of duty of care that causes death and is deemed ‘gross’ negligence, worthy of criminal punishment. The leading case is Adomako. Duty of Care and Breach: To establish Gross Negligence Manslaughter, it must be shown that D owed a duty of care to V, breached that duty, and that the breach caused V’s death. Key Legal Principles: Cases like Donoghue v Stevenson and Caparo v Dickman help determine the duty of care, while cases like Litchfield and Singh illustrate breaches of duty leading to liability. Gross Negligence Standard: The negligence must be so severe that it goes beyond mere compensation and shows a disregard for life, as seen in Bateman and Edwards. Scenarios and Questions: The document provides various scenarios and questions to help readers understand the application of these legal principles and determine the appropriate type of manslaughter. Summary of Legal Cases: A table summarizing the main legal principles of key cases is provided, helping to consolidate understanding of involuntary manslaughter. This Handout has been updated in light of recent cases and has been used with groups of students across many cohorts and has achieved excellent results.