Simon Bradshaw (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
major_clanger) wrote2004-03-07 06:06 pm
major_clanger) wrote2004-03-07 06:06 pm
Entry tags:
Homework done!
One month in to my OU course and I've just reached my first milestone - completion of the first TMA (tutor-marked assignment). Six more months, six more TMAs and one exam to go...
The first four units of W200: Introducing Law have, not surprisingly, mainly been about basic concepts of law and the English legal system. Broadly, we've covered:
Next up - three weeks on how the civil and criminal legal systems work in practice. At least I have a head start in this area, but then our tutor recommends spending a day watching how the County Court works, rather than an fortnight observing the High Court...
TMA1 wasn't too bad. The first part asked for a short essay on what is meant by 'common law', which really means three brief notes on its three different meanings.
One: a sort of legal system, as opposed to 'civil law' systems as used on the Continent.
Two: Law established by custom, accumulated judgments and precedent, rather than made by Parliament.
Three: That part of wider common law that is not Equity.
The difference between Common Law (in this context) and Equity is a bit like the Offside Rule, in that everyone involved knows it, but hardly anyone can give a concise definition. Essentially, 'equity' is that law that arose from the old Court of Chancery, which was set up in the C16th to provide for 'fairer' and more appropriate remedies than the already very formalised procedures of the King's Bench and related courts could provide.
Part 2 of the TMA was one of those classic 'A does B to C under circumstances X; read the attached legislation and give your legal opinion accordingly' questions. In this case it was about the Theft Act 1968, and hinged on questions of interpretation such as 'is it blackmail if the blackmailer had no intention of carrying out his threat' and 'is it robbery if the victim was not aware of the threat of violence'? Even simple questions end up with quite complex answers, as you pick apart the scenario word-by-word and do likewise with the relavent law.
Anyway, all done now; eight double-spaces pages in the post tomorrow. Next one due a fortnight after Eastercon.
MC
The first four units of W200: Introducing Law have, not surprisingly, mainly been about basic concepts of law and the English legal system. Broadly, we've covered:
- The nature of law - criminal and civil law, types of civil wrongs and the philosophy of law, rules and the role of the legal system.
- Sources of law - the origins of 'common law', judge-made law, how Parliament makes law and the impact of European Community law, and how law and legal cases are formally reported.
- Interpreting law - how judges interpret laws and legal documents in cases of ambiguity.
- Precedent - how the different levels of courts in the English legal system bind one another in terms of following the key legal element of prior judgments, and when this does and does not apply.
Next up - three weeks on how the civil and criminal legal systems work in practice. At least I have a head start in this area, but then our tutor recommends spending a day watching how the County Court works, rather than an fortnight observing the High Court...
TMA1 wasn't too bad. The first part asked for a short essay on what is meant by 'common law', which really means three brief notes on its three different meanings.
One: a sort of legal system, as opposed to 'civil law' systems as used on the Continent.
Two: Law established by custom, accumulated judgments and precedent, rather than made by Parliament.
Three: That part of wider common law that is not Equity.
The difference between Common Law (in this context) and Equity is a bit like the Offside Rule, in that everyone involved knows it, but hardly anyone can give a concise definition. Essentially, 'equity' is that law that arose from the old Court of Chancery, which was set up in the C16th to provide for 'fairer' and more appropriate remedies than the already very formalised procedures of the King's Bench and related courts could provide.
Part 2 of the TMA was one of those classic 'A does B to C under circumstances X; read the attached legislation and give your legal opinion accordingly' questions. In this case it was about the Theft Act 1968, and hinged on questions of interpretation such as 'is it blackmail if the blackmailer had no intention of carrying out his threat' and 'is it robbery if the victim was not aware of the threat of violence'? Even simple questions end up with quite complex answers, as you pick apart the scenario word-by-word and do likewise with the relavent law.
Anyway, all done now; eight double-spaces pages in the post tomorrow. Next one due a fortnight after Eastercon.
MC