Law

Law Order Description The summative assessment requires students to choose one of the cases contain" rel="nofollow">ined in" rel="nofollow">in the case list and write up a reflective report which evaluates it in" rel="nofollow">in more depth. The word limit is 2,000 – 3,000 words. This in" rel="nofollow">includes in" rel="nofollow">in-text citations, but excludes bibliography. Structure of content The self-reflective report should: (1) summarise the material facts, i.e. only the facts which are pertin" rel="nofollow">inent to your report should be retain" rel="nofollow">ined; (2) identify clearly the legal issues in" rel="nofollow">involved, i.e. what the question is about from a legal poin" rel="nofollow">int of view; (3) defin" rel="nofollow">ine and explain" rel="nofollow">in the relevant legal rule(s), i.e. identify the legal prin" rel="nofollow">inciples which are relevant to the case in" rel="nofollow">in question and clarify the applicable law, givin" rel="nofollow">ing authority (case law or statute, as appropriate); (4) apply the legal rule to the facts in" rel="nofollow">in question, i.e. make a sensible attempt to explain" rel="nofollow">in how the rule identified in" rel="nofollow">in step (3) was applied to the factual issues; (5) conclude the analysis and take a position, i.e. discuss how the issue posed at the begin" rel="nofollow">innin" rel="nofollow">ing of this sequence of steps was resolved and critically evaluate the outcome of the case (strengths, weaknesses, implications etc). The last step is crucial to your analysis. A strong report will demonstrate a thorough readin" rel="nofollow">ing of the case, wider research and a critical approach to the subject- matter. Your critique/ analysis should also consider the followin" rel="nofollow">ing questions: -Do you agree with the central argument adopted by the court? Why or why not? -What perspectives do you thin" rel="nofollow">ink are missin" rel="nofollow">ing? -Who benefits from the outcome of the case? Who does not? case https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/2000/58.html