+++++++++++Ask your Law questions and an experienced Success Formula tutor will answer them as soon as possible++++++
Any problems or questions while studying/preparing for Substantive Criminal Law? Don't worry, we've got you covered! Just post any of your questions on Studydrive (as a separate post, not as a comment please) and our tutors will help you as soon as possible!
We wish you a lot of success!
The Success Formula Team
As long as u follow the logical pattern, i.e. offence, actus reus, mens rea, conditions, application ...etc conclusion, you should be fine. I would be safe by using full sentences, but no need for essays or strict IRAC.
3 months ago
When to use necessity and when to use self defense it seems to be quite the same ? Thanks
in case of necessity there is a dangerous situation present (e.g. there is fire and you steal something to stop it), while in self-defence there is an imminent attack against the person or someone else (e.g. someone attacks you or another person in the street)
so for self defence the 1st requirement is that there is an imminent unlawful attack (against a legitimate interest) and the person tries to protect himself or another, while for necessity the 1st requirement is that there is an imminent danger (against a legitimate interest) so the person makes a choice and chooses the lesser evil, so breaks the law to avoid a more serious evil, problem
The nomilanist approach sees a corporation as a collectivity of individuals, therefore, the criminal liability of a corporation derives from individual wrongdoing. The realist or organisational approach considers a corporation in itself a dynamic organisational reality, capable of acting independently from its individuals.
In case you steal a fire extinguisher in order to save lives, the act in itself is still unlawful: the think is that you choose 'the lesser of the evils', i.e. you decide to break the law in order to avoid a more serious evil to others.
What happens is that later on, if the excuse of necessity applies, the wrongfulness of the act may be negated.
Necessity is the situation in which D., faced with two unpleasant alternatives, decides to break the law in order to avoid a more serious evil to himself or others. Your act, even if wrongful in itself, when placed in the situation won't be considered wrongful due to the circumstances.
Duress encompasses situations where D. was under such a pressure that he could not reasonably be expected to abide by the law: immagine a case in which S is pointing a gun at D, and tells him that if he doesnt kill V., S will kill D. D wouldn't be to blame if he would choose to kill V in order to prevent himself from dying! (however, take into account that in this latter example which regards murder, D wouldn't be excused under English law, where an heroic self-sacrifice is required , i.e. sacrifice your life instead of someone else's)
Hi everyone. I wanted to join the first-year ELS students group on WhatsApp. It says that it is already full. Do you know any ways how I can join the group? If you can add me, this is my number +995551994433.
Thank you in advance!
since there was said in the online tutorial today, we only need to know the details of the cases for EngL that was discussed in the tutorials, the lectures and the course book.. does anyone for instance have a summary of those cases? would help so much
It's is a third category of mens rea typical for common law. It has characteristics similar to Conscious negligence and Conditional intent.
3 months ago
are offences of participation applied as an offence in themselves or jointly with the other articles? i.e. is someone who encourages another to kill a third person liable for instigation or instigation to murder?
I do not agree, duress can be applicable for circumstances. I think those circumstances are putting some pressure and oblige someone to choose the lesser evil, which is stealing an exctinctor in order to prevent a fire from happening.
If you fail a course in the first year, you have another chance to take the exam in the next exam period.
If you fail that exam (so the resit), then you take the course in year 2, but have to drop one of the classes in year 2 to be under the ECTS maximum per period.
Correction by author: here a NOT is missing, the statement is not completely correct. To be more precise, it would be correct if we would deal with the utilitarian theory. But since it is the retributive one, its completely false.
SAME!!!! I failed with a 5, and I've heard the same from a lot of students.. And the most annoying thing is that I solved the cases but did not mention all the little details even if I knew it when I checked the model answers.... I'm really afraid of the resit after this.....