Reading the Law 2

• Credit value: 30 credits at Level 4 
• Module convenor: Victoria Ridler  
• Assessment: two-hour exam (100%) 

At the core of a legal education is learning how to engage with legal texts and materials, such as case reports and statutes, to identify and understand legal principles and rules. In Reading the Law 1 and 2, you will explore key cases and principles in criminal law, the law of evidence, constitutional law, and private law. You will learn about the law in an applied way, by analysing cases and statutes and using this knowledge in problem-solving exercises. 

Indicative syllabus 

• Criminal intent one: looking at the cases of R vs Moloney and R vs Woolin, we examine the elements of a crime and consider the evidence that is required in order to meet the standard of proof regarding the intention to cause harm.
• Criminal intent two: we continue to develop the themes of criminality and intent by reading R vs Nedrick, R vs Moloney and R vs Woolin, to compare the differences between them.
• Substantive issues and procedure in interpreting the law: we take the case of Factortame 1 as a framework for addressing the problem of how judges identify and narrow down the legal issues in a case - a key skill for law students and lawyers. The case also returns to, and develops, the themes of public law and statutory interpretation from Reading the Law 1.
• Evaluating decisions: the case of Factortame 2 builds on Factortame 1 and allows us to consider in more depth how the issues identified in that case were resolved. We also consider the implications for the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty, discussed in detail in Reading the Law 1.
• Implied repeal and the development of law: the case of Thoburn shows how the Factortame decisions were used as resources in another complex case involving the status of EU law in the UK.
• Policing, race and liability one: we explore the concept of duty of care, a key concept in the law of obligations, and introduces the notion of police liability via the case of Brooks vs Met Police Commissioner.
• Policing, race and liability two: you will read key passages from the MacPherson Report into institutional racism in the police and consider the case of Brooks vs Met Police Commissioner in a critical context.
• Historical liability: the case of Matua vs FCO continues the theme of liability, placing it into the context of continuing liability and political responsibility for actions carried out during colonial rule overseas.
• Human rights one: we look at the international human rights framework, drawing on work in the Legal Systems module, by considering the case of Lawless vs Ireland (No 3).
• Human Rights two: we consider human rights law in a domestic Tribunal system, taking the case of HJ HT vs Home Office as a way of framing how Tribunals decide matters of life and death in the asylum system. 

On successful completion of this module, you will be expected to demonstrate the ability to: 

• locate, read, and understand case law and statutory law 
• identify the legal principles deriving from case law 
• develop  the skills for understanding and interpreting statutory law 
• critically analyse legal texts 
• apply legal principles from case law and statutory law to problem scenarios 
• critically engage with legal principles and issues.