Law in Action- Help for Vulnerable Witnesses

This podcast explained how witnesses that are in a vulnerable position or reluctant to give evidence, usually children, assault victims and the elderly, are given special measures in order to collect evidence, for example a TV link or supporter.

At Kingston Crown Court they introduced a new scheme where they would show pre-recorded evidence to the jury. Cross examinations would also be recorded as it was easier and felt safer for the vulnerable witness.

Although this has helped to do justice by giving intimidated and afraid people a voice, some argue that it is unfair to the defendants as the jury cannot see how they would originally react and cannot ask further questions.

Law in Action- Help for vulnerable witnesses.
This episode of the podcast talks about the measures taken in order to make the court process, especially cross examination easier for people classed as 'vulnerable witnesses' who could be young people/children, the elderly or people with mental and/or physical disabilities.

Kingston Crown Court is one of several courts in London that uses this new scheme where vulnerable witnesses can have their cross examination pre-recorded a few weeks before the trial starts. Other amendments are also made for example, the rooms where young children record their cross examination is decorated with teddy bears and pictures of cartoon characters to reassure children. Amendments like this are necessary as sometimes children as young as 4 years old have to give evidence in trials.

It has been 21 years since parliament decided some situations required special measures and I think that these measures allow the English court to be a more respected place due to the consideration shown towards people.

Law in action- Abusive parents
In this podcast I learnt that the court are unsure whether they should allow children with parents with history of domestic abuse have a right to see their parent. It also shows the effect that domestic abuse has on the child and how it effects children who have minimal access to public services e.g. councillors and therapists. The court also struggle with false allegations as they are unsure whether the judge should let the child see the abusive parent however for the most part the court waits for evidence even though in many cases they wait a long time. The delay of the evidence can harm the relationship between the child and the parent when they are not allowed contact, however the court will take into consideration the interest of the child.

Law and Action-Sex Discrimination Law
This podcast talks about how certain companies being discrimination towards pregnancies. It says how a woman who was 4 months pregnant was sent home from work for "not doing her job properly" even though prior to the pregnancy, there had been no evidence of her improperly doing her job.
Unfortunately she was in a high risk pregnancy and had to keep her stress levels down meaning she had to drop the case and letting the company get away with this discriminatory behaviour.
A solicitor said this was a typical situation and said she wasn't surprised. Certain companies think that having a baby is like saying that they don't want to do their job and this assumption is very much prejudice.

Law in Action - Abusive Parents
In cases that involve abuse regarding children, the court will always put the child's welfare first and will have to asses the situation through set guidelines to see whether it is safe for the child to receive contact from the abusive parents. This is usually granted as they see it in the child's best interest to receive some sort of contact whether in the form of a letter to a supervised visit. This is due to the fact the parent wouldn't then automatically lose their parental responsibility.

This is also similar in cases that involve one parent, having been in prison. They do allow children to visit as the security is focused on the offender so safety is prioritized.

Law in action- Jailhouse law
Warren Hill is a prison with mostly men serving indefinite sentences. Students from Cambridge University come in the prison to study the Butler law course with students in the prison. They are learning about law and legal research. It gives the prisoners an opportunity to work when they are released. The course also allows the prisoners to mingle with people they wouldn't usually. The law students haven't experienced law in the way the prisoners have so even the students can learn; the Cambridge students see law in a "clean and honest" perspective but the prisoners see it from a "dirty and dark" view. The prisoners are now offering legal and practical help to inmates at other prisons. The prisoners know where there is a lack of knowledge in the law and areas that need clarification.

Law in action- abusive parents

This podcast explained the effects that abusive parents can have on children and how courts make their decisions. I learnt that when there are allegations of domestic abuse most cases will end up with some form or contact. Supervised contact could be the parent and the child meeting at a contact centre, where there are various degrees of supervision for example an adult overlooks several families. Courts tend to maintain contact as much possible however if it is not safe for the child it cannot be done.
A judge has to make a decision for the child if parents cannot agree on contact. The court has to make a decision that is best for the child’s welfare. If there are allegations of abuse the court has to investigate the allegations and if they are true, they have to evaluate if it’s safe for child to have a relationship with the parent. This is normally very difficult for the court as the only witnesses are the two protagonists so they have to wait for material from the police or a third party which takes a long time. The court has a set of guidelines to follow for evaluating the case.

Law in action- Vulnerable witnesses

This podcast explained that giving evidence in court can often be a difficult ordeal for witnesses who have been the victims of challenging crimes. To make giving evidence easier, at Kingston Crown Court vulnerable witnesses, who are often young people/children, the elderly or people with mental or physical disabilities, have the opportunity to pre-record their evidence and then it can later be played within court via a television link.

It has positive aspects, as it makes the process easier for the witnesses and enables them to give evidence without enduring a daunting court experience. However some people may argue that this makes the trial unfair for the defendants as the jury will not be able to see the defendant's original reaction, as the defendants would have already heard the witnesses' evidence beforehand. The jury may also want to ask questions but will be unable to, which may alter the trial having the same impact as it usually might have.

Abusive parents
In a normal situation, when 2 parents split up or go through a divorce, child arrangement orders are set up. However when one of the parents is violent or abusive it is often very difficult for the judge and family courts to decide what to do- e.g they could allow supervised contact or not allow any contact at all. This is due to the fact that the judge has to evaluate the situation and whether the child will be safe. This can take months and normally contact is suspended during this time period. Also during this time, information from e.g social service or police reports has to be gathered up and this takes quite long. Sometimes false allegations can be made (often against fathers) and on a few occasions, the judge can allow contact with children but this can lead to the parent continuing to abuse the child. Therefore, there is overall a lot of pressure put on courts and judges as they have to make the correct decision.

Law in Action- Sex discrimination law
This podcast highlighted the way that women were being treated differently when wanting to have children. For example, it showed that a women who had been doing her work correctly and to the best standards got told to quit her job and hand everything over just after telling them that she was pregnant. Then, when she questioned them as to why she had been told to leave, they made excuses that "she wasn't doing the work correctly". It has highlighted a problem to the courts that companies with big, public profiles were continuously treating women differently. Although sex discrimination isn't as bad as what it used to be, the lawyers say that there is still room for improvement such as paternity rights.

Law in action - rape myths
Last year 16,000 people people signed a parliamentary petition saying that rapists has been wrongly acquitted because juries believe in ‘rape myths’ and that sex without consent was not rape if there was no physical violence involved. End violence against woman conduced a survey and found that 33% of people in the UK said there must be violence for rape to occur. Those who had done the jury service, only a small amount of those individuals believed that for rape to occur there has to be some sort of physical violence (mark, bruises) or that if the victim did not fight back it could not be considered rape. Most rape victims were raped by someone they know and not a stranger.

Law in action- help vulnerable witnesses

This discusses the reluctancey or fear that the emotions will reappear. As they are questioned by the defence lawyer this makes them feel attacked by the defendants lawyer. Vulnerable witnesses include elderly, children and abuse victims.

Kingston court is one of the many places who are using a new way of witnesses telling there stories by using prerecorded evidence that will be used in the trials. These can be prerecord up to a week prior. When recording this the witness doesn't even have to be in the courtroom.

The issue is that the witness cannot therefore be further questioned therefore making it harder to be sure that everyone gets justice.

Law in action- Abusive parents

I learnt about how the law deals with abusive parents, I was quite shocked when I heard stories from mothers about abusive husbands who started with abusing their wives then the children. I also learnt that there are lots of different types of parental controls and ways children are allowed to see their parents if they are in prison. I already knew they had birds in prison to help the inmates, but I learnt about the bee hives and how they help with anxiety. I didn’t know that they were allowed to fly them freely after they have been trained.

Law in Action: Abusive Parents

The podcast about abusive parents explained that the children who suffer from domestic abuse from their parents develop various emotional and mental health problems from the coercive and controlling behaviour that they receive. This can cause them to become very vulnerable. As a result, organizations such as the NSPCC offer valuable help, counselling, therapy sessions, etc. When one parent takes the domestic violence allegations to court, the court have to decide and investigate whether the allegations are true, through sufficient and supported evidence from police, social services and the third party for the welfare of the child. The court then makes a decision whether contact will continue by evaluating if it is safe for the child to have contact. It may well be that it could be through a contact centre or supervised visits. Unfortunately, the current system is taking too long for the cases to be resolved, in which case the parent may not have access to their child until the verdict is made by the courts, as it may take as long as six months.

Law in action - Abusive carers/parents

During the radio show I learnt about the legal way of dealing with abusive parents, I was surprised to hear the shocking stories coming from mothers who's husbands had beaten them and the turned aggressive to their children. I also learnt about the different techniques of parental control , also the ways of how children are still able to have visitation of a parent who are in prison. The thing that surprised me the most is the different types of relaxation techniques in which prisoners are submitted to , like the birds surrounding the prison and the bee hives.

Law in Action- Rape myths

Last year 16,000 people signed a parliamentary petition, stating that rapists have been wrongly acquitted as juries believe "rape myths". An opinion poll found that a third of people believed "sex without consent" was not rape, if there was no physical violence involved. The government’s response to this was to support unprecedented research. The end violence against women campaign showed that 1/3 of people in the UK said that for rape to occur there must be a form of violence. However, when interviewing those who have done the Jury service, if the female did not fight back, it cannot be considered rape. Most people are raped by someone they know- not a stranger.

Law in Action - Jailhouse Law

This podcast was about how students from Cambridge University would come to the C-class prison, Warren Hill to study with the residents there every week.
It provides potential for both groups, the law students find the prisoners desire to learn inspiring and love their resilience. It gives them an insight to the opposing side of the law and produces a different view of the prisoners, of their potentially bright futures and ideas.
The prisoners also advantage from this experience, one of them has even written a book and got a GCSE in maths. The two parties debate because of their opposite viewpoints on law. Students see it from a "clean and honest perspective", whereas prisoners see it from a "dirty, dark perspective".

Law in Action - Online Abuse and the Law
In this podcast, I learnt that the criminal law is inadequate. As many people are now growing up with the internet, certain behaviours and things some people deem as OK are becoming normalised (such as sharing photos or harassment online) but the criminal law is not keeping up with this surge of abuse. Organisations are bringing this issue to public attention because the criminal law cannot persecute every person that breaks the law, this puts public safety at risk. In order to help victims, the criminal law will have to be changed, this will also ensure the persecution is appropriate.

Law in action-Jailhouse Law
I have learnt that assisting someone who may be terminally ill to commit suicide in any way is a criminal offence. I've also learnt that the royal college of Physicians is a highly influential body as their views are valued by both parliament and the courts. Also people can learn more about "reflection" and maturity from inmates in prison. The learning together project enabled the people who took part to do bigger and better things, for examples some inmates went to university post release and got degrees. This shows us that The Learning together project inspired the inmates to start a new life and seek higher education.

Law In Action- On Parole
From this podcast, I have learnt that a lot is taken into consideration before a prisoner is let out on parole. For example, in the specific case presented in the podcast, a prisoners living circumstances before committing crimes is considered, things like relationships with parents/ family. The length of your sentence is also considered. The prisoner was given an open ended sentence (an IPP, a minimum of 5 years) for attempted murder. If you have not served your full sentence, you are less likely to be let out on parole.

Law In Action - Jailhouse Law

Assisting someone to commit suicide is a serious criminal offence throughout the United Kingdom. Anyone who even travels abroad to help a loved one take their life is at risk of prosecution. It is being debated as to whether the law should be changed, and as to whether doctors should be allowed to provide the correct dose. The royal college of physicians is highly influential in parliament, in the courts, also the position adopted by the royal college of physicians may well be looked to by other medical bodies, therefore when giving their decision it’s important that it’s been given fairly and lawfully. If the royal college is to exercise their advisory functions advising parliament on behalf of its members then that advice has to be accurate and representative.

Law In Action - Abusive Parents

The podcast discusses how the court deals with children seeing abusive parents or parents with a history of domestic abuse. It says how 60% of family cases involve allegations of domestic abuse and it often takes the court several months to processes these allegations and typically contact with the said abusive parent is suspended until after an investigation has taken place. However, in many cases, some parents make up allegations (particularly mothers) which means a parent may go months without seeing their children despite them having done nothing wrong. Even if a parent has a history of domestic abuse, in many cases they will still be able to have contact with their child however it may be supervised as the court believe that typically some contact with a parent is better than no contact at all.

Law in Action- Help for vulnerable witnesses

This podcast discusses the measures taken in order to collect evidence from vulnerable witnesses who are often young children, elderly or assault victims.

At Kingston Crown court they have a new scheme where vulnerable witnesses may have their evidence pre recorded. The witnesses cross examinations would be recorded in advance to make the process easier and safer for them.

This has a positive aspect as it makes it easier for vulnerable witnesses and lets them provide evidence without going through an intimidating experience at court. However, some would argue that its unfair for the defendants as they would have already heard the witnesses evidence beforehand so the jury isn't able to see how they originally react or ask further questions.

Law in Action- Abusive Parents

In the podcast, I learnt that the court are uncertain on whether children should be allowed to see their parents who have domestically abused allegations against them or have been charged. The court is having to decide whether children seeing these parents is beneficial and safe for the children; they have to evaluate the situation. This is often hard because the only witnesses are the two parents involved, and it is one person’s word against another. They have to decide and if they think the parent will harm the child and if they should be allowed to see the child alone or with another adult present.

Podcast: Driverless Cars and the Law

This podcast was based on a discussion, as to who would be response if a driverless car crashed into another car or hit a person. I learnt that 90% of car crashes are human error and how the government want to change this by 2021 by decreasing the chance of crashes. However uncontrolled situations occur like collisions on the road where a person could have been injured or killed which the owner or manufacture of the car could be at fault and the legal system will have to detect who is at fault in order to find justice for victim. The podcast continued with a Barrister who explained the complexity of cases like these and where fault laid. She highlighted that the manufacturer could be accountable as they are aware that they have to produce a safe vehicle which is fit for purpose and meets all safety standards. The owner of the vehicle would still have accountability under their insurance policy and would be required to keep up to date with technology updates to be considered safe to drive on the road.
This shows the complexity in case’s as it can take many months to resolve on both sides producing evidence of safe technology and driver road safety. Through this podcast, I learnt how the law in this area is complex and could involve many parties such as car manufactures, software specialist, drivers and insurance companies. This could impact by raising the cost in every area of owning and driving a vehicle.

Law in Action - Abusive parents

it usually starts that children get caught up in the physical abuse between parents it starts with little things like pushing and shoving. I found out that it takes family courts months to get records on the abuse which can be very ineffective as the families still have to continue in their abusive situations. it's also shocking how the abuser can sometimes get away by lying and take the child to cause pain towards the child and also to give the other parent distress. The main aim of going to the judge is to ensure the child is raised in a safe and healthy environment. Also find it interesting that the court has to decide how much contact each parent shares, and every case is difficult making the judges job difficult. The judges are also under extreme pressure from the demand of cases which can lead to more mistakes.

Law In Action- Investigating the dead

In 2012, a woman attempted to open an investigation against Jimmy Saville, a former TV personality after she admitted to police that he sexually assaulted her 39 years ago, however, he had already passed and the crown prosecution service had stated that the dead can't be charged, tried or convicted and therefore questioned the purpose of an investigation. The purpose of investigating the dead is not to bring closure to the victims but to try and uncover a potential cover-up for those who may still be alive. It is argued that the dead should only be investigated by judges and police should only get involved if the possibility of a prosecution arises.

Week 2- Law Drama review
The case of Sally Challen
I chose to watch The case of Sally Challen, which documents this women's journey after and before she murdered her husband. The documentary shows how although we, as people who have no connection to the crime, see the case through the press in terms of conviction and small details over how the crime was committed, we actually never get the full story. This is evident in Sally's trial, as although she was seen as a cold-blooded killer due to the fact she had planned to kill him when she arrived at his residence, the story and background of why explain how she came to this action. After she was convicted with murder, new information came to light over how the 'victim' himself was actually just as much as a criminal like her. Sally Challen's husband was an abusive rapist to his wife and intern managed to take her life away from her through constant emotional abuse in the form of purpose embarrassment and control over her life and actions. To make matters worse, as I previously mentioned he took her right as a woman and a person away fro her by rapping her several times which broke her down and made her feel inhuman, which many explained was why she cannot be held accountable for her actions as through leaving her feeling inhuman meant she couldn't think clearly as a 'human' with the moral compass demolished.
This then made it a clearer case as her actions, although still not right, were explained and her motive was understood. She served 8 years but the law also believed she had served enough time her for the crime as after all she was also a victim.

Abusive parents
From this podcast i learnt that things parents do their children can also influence the behaviour of their children making them also become abusive, and effect them physically and emotionally. As well as that the court often has to decide if the parents should still be able to have contact or see their children at all, for the child's safty. Although this is hard for many families and children it can take months for their situation to be reviewed by the court, meaning that children can still be at risk and harm. However there is often lack of evidence and information making the situation hard to deiced what form of contact each parent can have.

Law week 2 review- Today I watched the Margaret Fleming disappearance in Scotland . It was such a surprising true story and it’s hard to believe the cruelty of these people who we’re supposedly her carers. There was limited evidence in the case for the crown prosecutors however they were determined to get justice for Margaret who had learning difficulties and had not been spotted in 17 years. The carers continuously lied to the police and almost acted unaffected by her alleged “disappearance” and it was believed they did this in order to gain compensation meant for Margaret adding to over 100,000 and therefore committed fraud. I believed from the start the couple were hiding something and were definitely guilty even if it wasn’t for murder and it was sad seeing people close to Margaret react to how the couple described her and what they had done to her. At the end they were rightfully sentenced to life in prison with a minimum sentence of 14 years which was satisfying to anyone who watched the documentary as it seems Margaret Fleming is most likely dead.

Week Two- The Disappearance of Margaret Fleming
I found this program extremely interesting. This case was not your typical murder trial, there were no direct eye witnesses to the crime, and Margaret's body was never found, meaning there was no real evidence to support her death.

The house in which Avril and Eddie lived, (Margarets Carers), was near a beach in a very sercluded area. However, their house was very run down, with lots of broken windows and bits of wood breaking off the walls, not the ideal home for anyone, let alone someone like Margaret who had learning difficulties (trouble writing).

When it comes to the actual evidence, it was extremely hard to provide a convincing argument for or against. Avril and Eddie continually said that Margaret visited every so often, even though CCTV footage of the local area showed no one matching her description. Not only that, there is no record of Margaret anywhere after 1999.

Margaret was described as someone who could be "easily taken advantage of" because she was "kind and loving". This means it would be easy for Avril and Eddie to take advantage of her. There is support for this, as there was pictures of Margaret with short hair (like Eddies) and drastic weight loss.

One of the most promising eye witnesses was an ex firefighter, who was driving past the house, and saw a bonfire. He said he could smell "burning animal flesh" in his statement, but in court, he said he smelt "burning human flesh". He describes it as a "indistinguishable smell". Due to the fact his statement has changed, the court decided to ignore this piece of evidence, which could've have been a key part to the case.

It was later predicted that Avril and Eddie were using Margaret for her benefit money, which totalled around £180,000 altogether. They supposedly murdered her shortly after Christmas in 1999, and continued to use her benefit money. They were both convicted of man slaughter, and given a life sentence with a minimum term of 14 years.

Week 1- Abusive Parents

I have learned a range of useful information like that Child Arrangement Orders are used to solve disputes between parents in England and Wales. Children are also quite susceptible to what is known as Coercive Behaviour by an abusive or an abused parent. Coercive Behaviour could be throwing away food made by a parent or even locking them outside of their home, which effectively damages the child's emotional and mental wellbeing. Some children also learn aggressive behaviour from their parents especially if the parents are in a rough place like divorce. Some parents (usually fathers) feel like the former partners have 'alienated' their children against them. Fathers have an incredible amount of false allegations put against them also. More times than not parents with an abusive history will be able to see their children again in a matter of months because the family courts believe 'some contact with parents is generally better than no contact at all', of course all facts must be put into consideration for this to happen. The court has a set of guidelines evaluating parents with an abusive history that were put into place 10 years ago but have been revaluated twice so far.

Week 1- Abusive Parents

I have learned a range of useful information like that Child Arrangement Orders are used to solve disputes between parents in England and Wales. Children are also quite susceptible to what is known as Coercive Behaviour by an abusive or an abused parent. Coercive Behaviour could be throwing away food made by a parent or even locking them outside of their home, which effectively damages the child's emotional and mental wellbeing. Some children also learn aggressive behaviour from their parents especially if the parents are in a rough place like divorce. Some parents (usually fathers) feel like the former partners have 'alienated' their children against them. Fathers have an incredible amount of false allegations put against them also. More times than not parents with an abusive history will be able to see their children again in a matter of months because the family courts believe 'some contact with parents is generally better than no contact at all', of course all facts must be put into consideration for this to happen. The court has a set of guidelines evaluating parents with an abusive history that were put into place 10 years ago but have been revaluated twice so far.

Week 2- Law drama review
I watched Margaret Fleming disappearance documentary which happened in Scotland. It was a shocking true story about a girl who lived with her two careers, they were accused of killing Margaret as she had not been seen in 17 years. This case was an extremely difficult case as there was limited evidence for crown prosecutors therefore they had to get as many people as possible to provide the best evidence they could. The house the two careers lived in was on coast; their house was very run down and was not the ideal place for anyone to live. Margret also had learning difficulties; she was described as someone who could be easily taken advantage of therefore it could be said that it was easy for her to be manipulated. It was later found out that her careers were using Margaret’s benefits for themselves, the money totaled to around £180,00 altogether. After coming to a conclusion the courts made the decision to sentence the pair of them to a life in prison with a minimum sentence of 14 years. However the documentary highlighted the fact that they still don’t know if Margret is dead as there is not sufficient evidence to prove it.

w1 Law in Action- The Family Drug and Alcohol Court (FDAC)

The podcast explained that the FDAC take a therapeutic approach to help rehabilitate alcohol and substance abusers, to aid them back to normal life. Many of the parents are motivated to quit to prove to the courts that they are fit to care for their children. The judges work within the child's best interest so they can prevent any harm from coming to them. The FDAC uses persistence and problem-solving techniques, this model programme reunited more families than other programmes and saw a higher decline in future relapses. The previous addicts also saw a vast improvement in their mental health which enabled them to rebuild a career. They learned how to live in reality and how to gain their lives back.

Week 2- Murder Trial: The Disappearance of Margaret Fleming

This programme was of an interesting nature, where there were many layers to this murder trial, piquing your interest. This murder case was not ordinary- no eye witness, no theories to what caused her death, no body to be found and no concrete/direct evidence to prosecute anyone or to support her death.

Margaret's two carers due to her disabilities- Edward Cairney and Avril Jones, were accused of her murder, though deny it claiming she is not deceased. They became the carers of Margaret Fleming after her father passed away to cancer; the case also revealed that Derek Fleming (deceased father of Margaret) also nominated them to look after Margaret.

In the beginning of the case, the police received a call from a social worker concerned about the welfare of Margaret Fleming, where it suggested that she was in need of immediate assistance.

As the case develops, the jury is made aware that Seacroft is isolated, where the residence led to some form of beach or bay. At many points of this case, there were many speculations of to what the reason could have been for Margaret Flemming supposedly running away and to where she could have gone. The carers claimed it was due to the fear of authority and it was highly suspected she had gone towards Wemyss Bay.

Throughout the interviews and investigations, Edwarrd Cairney took charge, with Avril Jones remaining quiet and there was compelling evidence to suggest that Margaret Fleming had not run away.

Residents of the village claimed that Margaret was an isolated person, where no-one in the village really knew her. She was last confirmed seen in 1999, where her General Practitioner had her case notes at her surgery in 2016, suggesting she did not register elsewhere. This was also strengthened as Fleming had not accessed the NHS, GP hospital, dental services or blood transfusions in many years. There was also no renewal to her passport and there was no information to Margaret having a mobile phone.

Margaret's learning support principal teacher in Port Glasgow High School had revealed she not as numerate or literate that you would expect 11/12 year old to be, where she was a "loner" and worked fairly well to her ability. It was also revealed that Margaret found refuge at Ms. Brown's door. Other classmates- Jonny Cox and Gillian McCulloch had also described her as gentle and kind but far too kind and loving where people could take advantage of her easily.

There were many possibilities to what happened to Margaret Fleming, where as part of the investigation, police had excavated Edward Cairney and Avril Jones' residence, to find 298 pieces of what seemed to be bone fragments; however, none could be identified as human. This provided the case very weak evidence.

Avril and Edmund also claim they saw Margaret, though not at their residence on the 7th October 2017. They claim Margaret had been to Poland, were Edmund claims she is a "gangmaster".

When interviewed by the BBC, Avril struggled to answer the reporters questions, Edmund steering the conversation dominantly. The interview was handed in as evidence as Avril struggled to recollect Margaret Fleming's character and personality. Three weeks after the BBC interview, both carers were arrested at Glasgow Central Station, where in their possession they had tickets to London and £3000 in cash.

Whilst in their care, Edmund and Avril were paid a sum of £180,000 to look after Margaret Fleming; in 2016, Avril Jones resubmitted a claim for Margaret as there was a change in the benefit system. After receiving the application, it was found that no-one saw her in 17 years, where a police investigation was launched effectively and immediately.

It was proposed Margaret Fleming ran off to London to see the dome, where two letters were sent from London to Seacroft, allegedly written by Fleming herself. Though, witnesses propose that she was incapable of writing those letter. Furthermore, whilst in London Eddie and Avril stayed in the Regent Palace Hotel, from which that was where the letters were typed. This would mean that on the same date, Eddie, Avril and Margaret were in this same hotel.

At the end of the case, the Jury made the decision that:
Edward Cairney is guilty of the death of Margaret Fleming and
Avril Jones is guilty of the death of Margaret Fleming and of fraud.
The punishments bestowed upon these two were life sentences, with a minimum of 14 years.

From the beginning to the end of this case, I firmly believed that Edward Cairney and Avril Jones were guilty of the death of Margaret Fleming. They were guilty of a girl who had a bright future ahead of her and I firmly believe they murdered Margaret Fleming in cold blood- the daughter of someone who was close to them and who entrusted his treasure to. Though there was no concrete evidence, Edward and Avril's body language proposed guilt, where Margaret Fleming was used as an opportunity to make money, rather than to care, love and protect this child. This case revolved a strong greed, arrogance and deceit, ultimately leading to Edward Cairney and Avril Jones' downfall. In the end, it was satisfactory to see that they would be punished for their deeds!

Week 2 – Law Drama Review
The case of Sally Challen
This week I watched ‘The case of Sally Challen’ which documents the journey Sally takes before and after she murdered her husband.
In 2011, she was sentenced to 22 years in prison for murder after a unanimous guilty verdict and was branded a cold-blooded killer. But it was only after her sentence, in 2015, that “coercive control” became a criminal offence. Later, evidence came to light that showed how Challen had suffered from her husband’s dehumanising behaviour. Earlier this year, after eight years in prison, she walked free at the age of 65 with a new conviction of manslaughter, rather than murder.
The Case of Sally Challen was a fascinating look at the challenges her legal team faced in fighting for an appeal, and especially the difficulty of proving she was a victim of coercive control. Despite what the public might have interpreted from headlines or certain articles, coercive control was not used as a defence against murder, but simply as a way to better understand what happened, to lessen her punishment and acknowledge the abuse she had lived with for years.
This film didn’t simply talk about how/why Sally Challen murdered her husband. It was a thoughtful attempt to understand this tragic case. Above all, the film looked beyond the prejudices and assumptions and instead, considered what laid beneath.

The case of Sally Challeen
I’m 2011 Sally Challeen was convicted of murdering her husband. This was surprising to friends and family and was a bizzare act out of the blue.

She admitted to killing her husband with a hammer. She later admitted she brought the hammer used to kill him from her new house suggesting it was pre-planned. She was suspicious of him seeing someone else and said ‘if I can’t have him then no one can’ implying she killed him out of anger and jealousy.

She was sent to prison and convicted of murder. People working on her appeal thought her actions may have been a response to domestic abuse. In Sally’s witness statement she described her husband Richard as “controlling” and “different in public then private”.

On holiday Richard raped Sally and did multiple times at home. They tried to appeal the case with Richard cohersive behaviour , but this was not enough. They tested Sally’s mental state and she developed a sicosis is prison indicating she was previously mentally ill.

When Sally and Richard were thinking of getting back together after a divorce Richard made rules she had to follow for them to get back together, again showing his controlling behaviour.

After a groundbreaking appeal Sally’s sentence was changed to manslaughter and she had already served her sentence and was released from prison.

Disappearance of Margaret Fleming
Margaret Fleming was reported missing in October 2016 from her home in Denver Kip Inver clade but had not been seen since December 1999. Edward Keaney, 76, and Alfred Jones, 58, were charged with abducting and murdering Miss Fleming and calming £182,000 in benefits by fraud by pretending she was still alive. The pair’s lawyer entered not guilty to the pleas to all the charges on their behalf during the first public hearing during the case at the High Court in Livingston. It is alleged Kyani and Jones abducted Margaret at her home in C Croft and were kept her locked in her room assaulted her, cut her hair and bound her arms and wrists with tape. Between November 1997 and January 2000 the pair were accused of murdering Miss Fleming, by unknown means at some point between December 18th 1999 and January 5th 2000. It is alleged that between December 18th 1999 and October 2016 they pretended to the Department of Work and Pensions officials, Miss Fleming was alive and claimed state benefits obtaining £182,000 by fraud. The pair also faced two charges of attempting to defeat the ends of justice it is alleged they disposed of destroyed or concealed the remains and personal effects of Miss Fleming between December 18th 1999 and October 26th 2017. They were also accused of trying to board a train to London at Glasgow Station on October 25th 2017, whilst carrying £3,500 and the keys to a safe deposit box at a bank in London, which contained £27,000. It is alleged applied to travel and evade the police and prosectors, Keone was not present during the hearing due to mobility issues as he was in a wheelchair. However Jones was present, Lord Matthews fixed her trail date for September 25th at the High Court in Glasgow.

Week 2- The case of Sally challen

This case is about a woman who murdered her husband and was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum of 22 years. The prosecutions argument was that she was jealous, drank a lot and thought that her husband was cheating on her. When she saw a voicemail which he sent to another woman, she killed him with a hammer.
However she appealed and Sally revealed that she was coersively controlled by her husband, he raped her a few times and verbally abused her. Even though coercive control isn't a defence to murder , it was also discovered that she has emotionally unstable personality disorder so was mentally unstable when she murdered her husband. Therefore the appeal was successful and she was set free from prison after serving 8 years
(The offence was changed to manslaughter but she has already served enough time in prison to be set free.)
What I found interesting was how hard it was for Sally's defence team to find sufficient evidence to use in court so thather appeal so that the appeal would be successful. This was because the courts aren't sympathetic when it comes to appeals and coercive behavior isn't a defence to murder. I also realized that the courts don't always make a fair/ correct verdict and this shocked me. Therefore I am pleased that advancements in technology is starting to allowed these verdicts to be analysed sufficiently so that correct ones are given.

The case of Sally Challen

This case was very complex and interesting to research as the defendant Sally Challen murdered her husband Richard in what appeared to be an unprovoked attack. It later transpired that Sally had suffered psychological, emotional and physical abuse at the hands of her own husband during their many years of marriage. She brutally attacked her husband by using a hammer in which she hit him on the head 20 or so times. Her reasoning for this attack was that she had suspicions that Richard was seeing other women , at the time they were separated but they had agreed on giving their marriage another go. The prosecution called Sally "a jealous and spiteful women" which gave the motive for the killing. During their years of marriage, Sally had become obsessed with stalking her husband , questioning neighbours about his movements and even hacking into his email account.

One of the defences arguments for Sally's crime was that during the period leading up to the murder, Sally had been drinking heavily ( although she was advised against so ) , she had also admitted to be going through depressive episodes because of Richard's alleged infidelity.

After the trial the judge charged her with murder , not the manslaughter charge her defence team had petitioned for , and sentenced her to minimum 22 years to life in prison. The reason why the manslaughter charge was not agreed to was because of the premeditation of this crime. Sally had brought the murder weapon (the hammer) with her in her handbag to the family home , which shows preparation for the crime, this rules out accidental killing which is the definition of manslaughter. However her lawyers argued her case of "diminished responsibility " during her crime , which means an unbalanced mental state that is considered to make a person less answerable for a crime ,and to be grounds for a reduced charge, but that does not classify them as insane. But due to the premeditation of the weapon this argument was overlooked.

One year after the trial had ended and Sally had been incarcerated for over 18 months, she contacted justice for women , an organisation helping women who have suffered domestic abuse and then killed their partner. This cause allowed Sallys case to be re looked at and now in 2014 the coercive control law had been passed , this allowed domestic violence and control techniques to be seen as a crime. This is the first time the offence of coercive control was used as a partial defence to murder in the uk.

Sally's case is one that should be used to show the flaws within the justice system for women as Sally suffered over 20 years of abuse from her husband but when she finally fought back she was given life in prison. The complexity of this case overlooked how women are now seen in domestic abuse relationships and the coercive control act will now hopefully protect many women who might be in Sally's position.

This case showed the different ways that people suffer as a way of domestic abuse and it also showed how the justice system treats the victims who may be the perpetrators as well.

Week 1: Law in Action (Abusive parents)
Whilst listening to the podcast, I found it very shocking and disturbing that parents who have had a previous record of domestic abuse, was granted permission by the court to have unsupervised visits with their vulnerable children. Despite children’s wishes to have access to both parents, the court should prioritize children’s safety and wellbeing above anything else, and as a result of this not allow them to be in a household alone with their parent who has had a previous record of domestic abuse. I also found it distressing that children were repeating abusive actions onto others that they have learnt from their parent. This was upsetting, as the innocent child would be frowned upon for displaying such evil actions but they are not aware it is unkind as that is all they are around growing up.

Follow us on Instagram@lpgs_law_business

Week 2 - Law Drama Review (Criminal Justice)
Criminal justice is a documentary based around a man named Ben being put on trial for a murder that he cannot remember committing. During the first episode, viewers can watch the lead up to the murder. During this, the women named Melissa supplied Ben with some type of pill. As well as this, Ben showed signs that he felt uncomfortable with some of the requests Melissa made, (one of these requests was stabbing her hand). However, Melissa manipulated Ben by supplying him with alcohol until he eventually caved in. The next day, Ben woke up and found Melissa dead on her bed. Ben could not recall any of the events that had previously took place due to being intoxicated, however he had a strong instinct he had committed the murder as he had blood on his hands and no one else was in the house. Whilst Ben was in his prison cell he clearly showed how he was loosing his stable state of mind, completely ridden with guilt that he was being accused of committing a terrible sin without any memory of whether he was actually guilty or not.

Week Two – The disappearance of Margaret Fleming
This case is unlike most murder trials. It presented limitations due to the lack of evidence, eyewitnesses and the inconsistencies in the statements of the accused.

Margaret suffered with moderate learning difficulties which meant she needed constant care after being deemed as vulnerable and ‘easy to take advantage of’. Before her father’s death, he had nominated Eddy and Avril to be her full-time carers. I find this surprising, since one of Avril’s closest friends had stated that they ‘didn’t seem capable of caring for themselves let alone someone else’. This suggest that they may not hesitate to neglect their duty of care in situations involving Margaret.

In the initial police search, CCTV was downloaded and reviewed, and it showed no positive identifications of Margaret where she was expected to have been if the carers had told the truth about her whereabouts. Police helicopters, dive teams and dog handlers were all involved in the search.

Fairly quickly, Police had established that Margaret had not been seen by anyone who were not her carers since 1999. It had increased speculation that Eddy and Avril were involved in her disappearance. Eventually, the prosecution felt that they had enough information to claim that Avril and Eddy had murdered Margaret at the end of 1999 without authorities knowing. This way they could claim and live off her benefits. Once the evidence had been presented to Court, the jury concluded that both Eddy and Avril were guilty of the murder of Margaret Fleming and they each received a life sentence with a minimum prison term of 14 years. I think it is reassuring to know that despite limited evidence, justice can still be served.

week 2- Law Drama
I watched the movie 'A Time to Kill'. This was set in 1980 Mississippi. And it was about a black man called Carl Lee Hailey and him murdering the two white men who raped his 10-year-old daughter.
This movie is about a revenge killing with national media coverage. The movie had a test on my morality as I knew that Carl Lee killed those men, but part of me didn't want him to get prosecuted due to the fact as the murder came across as ''justified''. The film also talked a lot about race, for example in the movie they wanted to change the jury as an all white jury would've not been deemed as fair. In the closing argument the lawyer, Jake Brigance, tells the jurors exactly what happened to Carl Lee's daughter, then said ''imagine she's white''. This is what sway the jury, as it made the jury able to gain connection to the girl, making them understand the father’s response. When the overall verdict was made Carl Lee was given not guilty by reason of insanity.

Week 2- The case of Sally Challen
This documentary is about a woman named Sally Challen who was put into prison in 2010 to serve a minimum sentence of 22 years for the murder of her husband. Although Sally pled guilty of manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility which would have allowed her to have a reduced sentence, this was not accepted and the jury found her guilty of murder and she was therefore given a longer sentence. At the time of her original trail, what her husband did to Sally in their 31 years of marriage was not talked about as she was told that the Jury would not like it if someone 'spoke ill of the dead' so what went on behind closed doors was never mentioned. When Sally was serving her sentence her niece found an organisation called Justice For Women who worked to get women who had killed their partners out of prison if they were victims of abuse or violence in any way shape or form. Sally mainly worked with human rights lawyer Harriet Wistrich. They decided to make an appeal on the grounds of new evidence from psychiatrist Dr. Gwen Adshead who said that at the time of the murder Sally would of had physiological issues such as borderline personality disorder which would have likely been a product of the coercive control caused by Richard Challen. At the time of the first trail coercive control was not a criminal offence however in the time that she was in prison it became one. Sallys' legal team did not base their whole appeal on the aspects of coercive control alongside other things such as rape that went on in the marriage. They used these facts to support the psychiatric evidence of psychological problems Sally had. She got the appeal and after 3 months the court date was cancelled and Sally was let out of prison. I think that in cases such as Sallys' , it is a necessity that organisations like Justice For Women exist in order to make sure women are not victims of miscarriages of justice.

Week 2: Law Drama Review

Drama: The Witness for the Prosecution

“The Witness for the Prosecution” drama has a very enticing and interesting storyline in which you have to pay very close attention to the small details. This drama is about a murder of a wealthy woman called Emily French on the 28th of October 1923 and the lead up to the real murderer who committed the crime at her home in Holland.

This drama had many plot twists and false accusations towards different people. In the beginning, the first accusation was towards a lower-class young man called Leonard Vole, who was receiving money in return for his companionship from Emily French. He was accused with the insufficient and manipulated evidence of murdering Emily French in order to receive her inheritance. However, he pleaded ‘not guilty’. This evidence was supplied by the maid of Ms French; Janet McIntyre. Leonard Vole’s girlfriend (Romaine) is used a witness. However, this backfires as she changes her story to make him look guilty. As the drama develops, the lawyer of Leonard Vole (John Mayhew) clears his name as there was insufficient evidence to charge him of murder. This is because Leonard’s lawyer has been provided evidence from someone Romaine used to work with.

The maid of Ms French, Janet McIntyre, is also a suspect to this crime. She is proven to be possessive and controlling over “her Lady”. The Jury found her guilty of the murder as the crime was fuelled by speculation and jealousy. Therefore, she was convicted of murder and her sentence was a death penalty.

To summarise, my opinion about this drama is very mixed. It was very interesting yet confusing at the same time as there were many twists to the story. This is because at the very end of the drama, we find out that the maid was wrongly convicted, as the real murderer was in fact Leonard Vole. Both Leonard and Romaine had planned to frame the maid in order to not look guilty and runaway with the inheritance money.

Week 2 - Law Drama Review

I watched the documentary on the disappearance of Margaret Fleming. I thought that this case was very interesting as there was no direct evidence; no eyewitnesses, murder weapon, and her body was never found.

The case began when the police were contacted by a social worker with concerns about Margaret’s welfare. She lived with her two carers, Edward Cairney and Avril Jones, in Seacroft, which was an extremely run down and negated house in an isolated area, next to a large body of water.

It was very clear at the start of the investigation that Edward and Avril were acting very apprehensive. This can be seen several times, for example, whilst being questioned by the police Edward brings up a ‘murder charge’, without any prompt from the police. Avril’s close friend also states how she was skeptical about them, saying how they didn’t seem capable of caring for themselves, let alone another person.

Margaret had moderate learning difficulties, being described by her childhood friends as ‘very easy to take advantage of’. It was later revealed that 17 years after she had gone missing, her benefits were still being paid to Avril, totaling to around £180,000. This then arose the suspicion that they had murdered Margaret and were living off of the money from her benefits.

Later on in the case, the police found two typed letters which were sent from the Regent Palace Hotel in London in 2000. A witness, Margaret’s English teacher, had explained how she believed that Margaret was incapable of writing these letters and that they were the subject of fraud. It was then discovered that Edward and Avril were staying in the same hotel at the exact time that the letters were written.

When taken to court, Avril refused to answer any questions and Edward either denied or gave no direct answers.

Edward Cairney and Avril Jones were both found guilty of murder and attempting to defeat the ends of justice. Avril Jones was also found guilty of fraud. They received a life sentence, with a minimum of 14 years in prison.

I think that justice was served, despite the lack of evidence in the case. I also think that Edward and Avril were guilty of Margaret’s murder and that they were rightly prosecuted for their actions.

Week 2: OJ Simpson
This was a very interesting case about the murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman, who were murdered in 1994 in Nicole's house.
OJ Simpson was Nicole's ex-husband, and despite at first not being a suspect, his DNA was found at the crime scene and some blood was found in his house and car. There was also one glove found at the crime scene and the other glove found at OJs house (although in the trial when OJ tried to put these gloves on they did not fit).
However, there was DNA found underneath Nicole's fingernails that did not match OJ Simson and there were footprints that did not match the shoes OJ was apparently wearing that day.
Despite most evidence pointing to OJ, many people believed he did not do it due to racial tensions between people and the police, meaning many people did not trust the police and believed they set up OJ. This case created a racial divide.
Although, there was also evidence that showed Nicole had been a victim of domestic abuse as she had called police several times asking them to come over to remove OJ from her property as she felt he was going to hurt her, as well as this her sister had also kept a record of Nicole's bruises she got when OJ would physically abuse her.
Overall, the jury declared OJ Simpson not guilty of the crimes. I personally believe that OJ was guilty due to the DNA found at the scene of the crime.

week2: the case of Sally Challen

This video interested me because at the start of the documentary it portrays sally as a murderer, who as lost all control over herself and committed the crime for no reason. However, as the documentary continues it allows you to understand the deep details and little things which built up her need to kill her husband. It also interested me that certain pieces of evidence were not handed into the jury, such as anal rape and controlling behaviour from her husband. It also explains that after being imprisoned she suffered from bad metal issues, highlighting she must have been in a worse mental state when she was at home with her husband.

Week 2- The Case

"The Case" is about Tony Powell being charged for murdering his terminally ill partner, Saskia Stanley. Although he strongly denied having murdered her, he said that it was a case of helping her commit suicide. And there was a letter (apparently from Saskia) confirming this, however the tape that Tony say that they made together disappeared and Tony claims that it was stolen.

Defending Tony is barrister Sol Ridley who asks Julie Prior to assist him on the case. Sol and Julie both thought that Tony seemed sincere about his love for Saskia and about his distress about being asked to help her die. Although Sol did believe that he was lying by omission about something.

Metzler, the prosecution barrister, sets out case by saying that Tony took advantage of Saskia's condition; the fact that she had Osteosarcoma (bone cancer), that she was isolated from her family, that she was in terminal condition, persuading her to change her will and finally taking her life with an overdose of diamorphine. Which Tony then claims was her idea all along. He characterises him as callous and driven by money. Metzler then accuses him of making up the story of Saskia's "goodbye" videotape to exonerate himself. When asked where the tape had gone, Tony cracks under pressure and says that believes that Neil, Saskia's brother, had stolen it.

Neil and his son Daniel, were both convinced that Tony had murdered his partner. However, his daughter Jessica doesn't agree that believes that Tony is not guilty.

So whether it was an act of love or murder is for the jury to decide.

Week 2-OJ Simpson trial
OJ was an American football player who got was a suspect for a double homicide of his ex-wife, Nicole and Ron, Nicole’s friend. Majority of the evidence pointed towards Simpson, but his lawyer thought that the LAPD framed Simpson because he was black. The evidence included hair from OJ on the body of both the victims, blood all over his house that matched the victims, gloves that had been bought by OJ. On top of all this Mr Simpson had a history of domestic abuse and lots of calls had been made by Nicole where she feared for her life but OJ said this was normal for them and wasn’t concerned. He was found not guilty by the jury but in 2007 he was caught stealing sports memorabilia and kidnap, so we sentenced to 33 years in jail. He has been on parole since 2017 and is still alive today.
Personally, I think he did it because of the history of abuse and the evidence.

Week 2 - The case of Sally Challen

In 2011 Sally Challen was convicted of murdering her husband, an act which happened 'out of the blue'.

They say she 'lost it' after going on Richard's phone and hearing a voice message from another woman, causing Sally to kill him with a hammer. She claimed she was not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. In the end they came to the conclusion that it was murder.

Sally contacted justice for women who worked to get women who had killed their partners out of prison if they were victims of abuse or violence. They decided to challenge her murder conviction by talking about the history of Sally and Richard before the murder. We begin to see a different perspective on the story, one where Sally has more of a reason for killing her husband. It shows him as being very controlling and physically and verbally abusive. He constantly did things which would upset Sally, driving her crazy. They reopened the case after new evidence was brought forward. It was determined by a psychiatrist that Sally was more mentally ill at the time of the murder than people realised and she was diagnosed with borderline personality disorder.

In the end she won the appeal and was realised from prison.

Week 2- The Case Of Sally Challen

I watched the documentary of Sally Challen who was convicted of murdering her Husband Richard Challen with a hammer.For years her husband had been controlling her and abusing her physically, mentally and emotionally.Due to her mistreatment she ended up killing him with a hammer in the kitchen. She was jailed for life and ordered to serve a minimum sentence of 22 years. Sally's family and women activist groups challenged this sentenced based on diminished responsibility as she had suffered extreme abuse at the hands of her husband for many years.

On December 29th 2015 a new law was introduced called Coercive Control which recognises the act and pattern of assault, threat, humiliation , intimidation or other forms of abuse intended to frighten a partner in a relationship.Sally Challen had been subjected to this abuse throughout the years such as: anal rape , gas lighting and name calling. This resulted in Sally suffering with mental illness such as : depression , split personality and bipolar.

Challen and her legal team fought hard to appeal this decision and managed to overturn the original murder charge for a lesser charge of manslaughter to only serve 10 years which she had served and was released

Sally Challen case is highlighted with the introduction of the Coercive Control Act 2015.

The Case of Sally Challen
This is an interesting case as it takes place between a married couple, Sally and Richard Challen. Their relationship started off packed with fun, they were described as always having fun together and had a seemingly perfect marriage. That was until one day, Sally violently murdered her husband with 20 blows to the head by a hammer. Friends and family were shocked by this because they seemed to be the ideal married couple, but of course this was all a façade.
In court, Sally's defence did not mention that she murdered him due to abuse. Richard raped Sally multiple times but nobody took this very seriously as they were married. This ides was brought up when Sally hired Harriet Wistrich, a human rights lawyer. Her cause was then taken up by a Women's Rights group, they specialised in abusive relationships. Their appeal to the court was a success and Sally was released from prison after spending nearly nine months there. This opened up a whole new viewpoint to the legal system as previously, murder due to abuse was not taken seriously. Personally, I think that the abuse from her husband left Sally with no other option that to kill him. I agree with the fact that Sally went to jail because all murder is illegal.

Week One; Mental Health Offenders


During the Podcast i learnt that up to 90% of offenders suffer from a mental health disorder ranging from anxiety to personality disorder. Offenders often end up in prison as a rebellious act due to their trauma. I also learnt that the system was previously accused of beating a man with a stick as he “deserved it” for having psychotic grieving disorder. Offenders however can receive help in prison but only if they have a “diagnosable illness” during the sentencing process offenders are questioned on their potential mental health disorders, if they have them they will go through more testing. the last thing i learnt was that if an officer believes a prisoner doesn’t belong there but yet in a hospital they must contact and request and mental health act and proceed to meet with doctors and test if the prisoner should be in hospital or prison. i found it sad but yet also interesting as this particular topic of mental health and law is my favourite.

week 3- Whats fair about the trial.
If a company is being prosecuted, a representative of the company must be present to speak on its behalf. Witnesses can not hear proceedings until they have given their evidence, this ensures a fair trial as it means a witness can not change their statement to match another witnesses statement. If the witness wishes to look in their notebook they must ask the magistrate and defence if they have any objections. The defence can also ask the look at the relevant pages in the notebook. this displays a fair trial as the defence can see if the notes in the notebook are true, accurate and professional.

After giving their statements and evidence, witnesses can stay in the court but can not make any further contact to the witness yet to be called, again to ensure they don't line up their answers and statements on purpose. The prosecutor and defence can both ask the witnesses questions. The magistrate can also ask the witness questions for clarification so they have all the information to make their decision fairly.

Under human rights legislation, the magistrate give reasoning behind their verdict and decision, this is the defendants right to a fair trial.

Week 3
When in court, respect must be maintained all the way through the trial. This is done through strict guidelines such as only being able to speak when spoken too as well as having to swear an oath before speaking which ensures lying or withholding vital information protecting someone is a criminal offense.

The trial maintains clear respect for both parties however leading questions can be made which may expose hidden answers on your behalf. This is common as it catches people off guard and if the person being questioned is guilty it will give them less time to lie or may defer them from their original story. I think this is fair for both parties as they may be asked to whoever is at the stand and gives the barrister the opportunity to prove his defendant not guilty to the judge.

Week 3
If a company is being prosecuted, a person from the company must be in the court to speak on its behalf. Before the trial starts all remaining witness must leave the court and they are not aloud to hear any of the proceedings until they have given their evidence. The prosecution may ask for an expert witness to be aloud to stay in court if the defense has no objections and the magistrates agree, if they all agree then the expert witness can remain throughout the trial. If a witness wishes to refer to their notebook to refresh their memory when giving evidence they must ask by the magistrates and defense if they have any objections. The defense is entitled to look at relevant pages in the notebook, if the defense believes that the notes were not made at the time they can object for the witness to be allowed to refer to their notebook.

If a witness has no religious beliefs or follow a religion that forbidden you take an oath or if circumstances make it impractical to administer a particular oath then you can affirm. The usher will ask which you prefer and will give you a card with the appropriate words.

The witness must address and look at the magistrates when giving evidence. When a piece of evidence is given the magistrates make the decision whether to disregard the evidence or kept it.

When a witness is done giving their evidence and answered any questions asked they are free to remain in court, they must make no contact with any other witnesses yet to be called to give their evidence.

Week 3

What fair about this trial?

If a company is in the process of being prosecuted, an authorized representative of the company may speak on their behalf. It is always best to meet additional witnesses outside the court, where they will not be able to enter the court or attend the proceeding until it is their time to give evidence.

They will also not be able to confer with other witnesses until all evidence has been collated. A witness statement is noted before the witness enters the court, where this ensures a fair trial as a witness is unable to alter their statement.

Witnesses are also sworn by oath to ensure there is civility and respect within the court room. An oath is taken by the witnesses to ensure they are speaking truthfully and to also not to withhold information which may prove to be important.

To ensure a fair trial, a witness must ask the permission of a magistrate to refer to a notebook, where the defense is able to look at the notebook to see if the relevant notes are both accurate and professional.

After cross- examination and re-examination from both the defense solicitor and the prosecutor, the witness is then questioned by the magistrates to ensure clarification on grey areas. The witness is then unable to be called again and may stay in the court to hear the proceedings.

It is also noted that it is for the prosecution to establish guilt and not for the defense to establish a witness' innocence.

Under human rights legislation, the verdict is delivered where the magistrate will give the reasoning behind their verdict.

week 3 ~ What's fair about the trial

When a company is being taken to court ( prosecuted ) a representative of the company , in this case the managing director has to be present on behalf of the company. An effective way of making sure the trial is fair is to keep witnesses separate to ensure there is no collaboration of the stories. When in the court room , witnesses are not allowed to hear the proceedings of the court so they are asked to leave the courtroom. And if the witnesses wants to look at the notebooks then they must ask for the permission of the magistrates and the defence , again this ensures the fairness of the trial.

An expert witness is allowed to stay in the courtroom during the whole trial as long as the defence and magistrates agree, this means the witness gives opinion on technical matters and on the evidence shown in court. This allows the magistrates to hear different opinions whilst allowing the expert witness to give their opinion based on facts. The defence and prosecution are allowed to ask the witnesses questions which means that both sides of the prosecution get all the facts and the correct statements.

Week 3 - What is fair about the trial?

When a company is being prosecuted, a representative will be present to speak on its behalf. All witnesses must leave the court to ensure that they cannot hear any proceedings until they have given their evidence. This means that they cannot change their views after hearing other evidence, making sure that the trial is fair. A witness statement is also written, making sure that the witness cannot change their mind and is being truthful. A copy of this is also given to the defence.

If the witness does not belong to a religion or their circumstances prohibit them from taking an oath, then the usher will allow them to choose whether to affirm. This ensures that they are speaking the truth and will not retain any vital evidence.

If a witness wants to refer to a notebook, they must ask the magistrates permission. The defence can also look at this notebook and can object to the officer being able to use it if they believe that it wasn’t written at the time it was said. This helps to keep the trail fair as it confirms that the evidence is accurate and true.

After the cross-examination has taken place, the prosecutor can re-examine the witness, but only on matters that have been brought up by the defence. The magistrates can then question the witness further if they need any clarification.

The witness can stay in court after being stood down, however, they can have no contact with any witnesses that are yet to be called to give their evidence. This ensures that they cannot discuss the questions asked by the defence solicitor.

When the verdict is given, it is under the human rights legislation that the magistrates will give reasoning for their decision. This is part of the defendants right to a fair trial.

The prosecutor can also raise any previous convictions with the magistrates, as well as applying for prosecution costs. This ensures that the defendant will get the right sentence and that the costs of the investigation are covered.

Week 3- what is fair about the trial?
There was someone representing the company, defendent and the prosecutor. As a witness, you couldn't hear any preceedings until you gave evidence. There was however an expert witness present who gave opinions on the case (not facts.) The witnesses were taken into the courtroom in chronological order so that a good track of the events was kept. Along with this, on the lunch break, the witnesses who had and hadn't given evidence were separated.
Whilst in the court room, the witnesses were stopped (whilst giving evidence) if they spoke too quickly. This is so that the legal advisor was able to make thorough, detailed notes.
Both the defendent and the prosecutor asked the witness questions and at the end, both the verdict and reasoning were given (this is part of the law.)

week 3 - what is fair about this trial?
During this trial there was someone representing the company, defendant and the prosecutor. The details read out are very precise therefore there are no miscommunications. Before the trial starts, all remaining witnesses must leave the court so they can not hear any proceedings until they have given their evidence. The prosecution may ask for an expert witness to stay in the court, if the defence have no objections and the magistrates agree then they can remain throughout the trail. An expert witness appears for the court and they have special experience or studying, if an expert witness is present they are there to give opinions on the case and not facts. The magistrates normally call witnesses in chronological order, this helps the magistrates keep track of what’s going on. When entering the court the witness has to follow the usher to the witness box, look at the solicitor when being asked a question but when answering give the answer to the magistrates, keep the answer short and precise and don’t ramble on and if the witness wishes to refer to their notebook they have to ask for permission. All mobile phone have to be switched off, as this could cause disruption to the trial. If the witness has no relies beliefs or follow a religion that forbids you to take an oath then the witness can affirm. The prosecutor will take the witness through their evidence in their witness statement (evidence in chief), the defence will also have a copy of the witness statement. The witness maybe asked to speak slower when giving evidence so that the legal advisor could make details notes, they will also stop the witness if they fail to address the bench, and will challenge the use of third person (this restricts the evidence to what the witness did and their first hand actions), the court will also stop the witnesses if they were to use slang. When the witness asks to refer to their notes, the magistrates and defence has to agree or disagree to wether they agree with this action, the notes are also to refresh the witnesses’s memory and for them not to read off of it. The defence solicitor can apply to have evidence excluded if they were to believe it wasn’t being properly obtained. At the end the magistrates have the opportunity to ask the witness questions to require clarification on anything they have given in their evidence. After a witness has spoken in court they must make no contact with other witnesses that have not spoken, the court would take a view if they believe that any witnesses has discussed the questions asked by the defence solicitor. At lunch break they ensure witnesses that have spoken that those who have not, dine separately. Consider taking an extra person who isn’t in the case into court that way the last witness is not left alone outside the court, there have been are occasions when witnesses have been threatened when left alone.

week2-The case of sally challen

In 2011 Sally Challen was convicted of murdering her husband Richard Sally violently murdered her husband with 20 blows to the head by a hammer. Sally Challen claimed she was not guilty of murder, but she was guilty of manslaughter. She admitted to killing her husband with a hammer and later admitted she brought the hammer from her new home which she used to kill him suggesting it was pre planned. In the end they came to a decision that it was murder, Sally was then charged with murder, jailed for life and ordered to serve a minimum sentence of 22 years.

For many years her husband had been controlling her and abusing her physically, mentally and emotionally which lead to her suffering with mental illness such as depression and split personality which is why she ended up killing her husband.

Sally contacted Justice for Women an organisation that help women who have suffered domestic abuse. This allowed Sally’s case to be re looked sally was then charged of manslaughter and ended up serving 10 years.

Week 3- What is fair about this trial?
If it is a company being prosecuted, they must elect a spokesperson to speak on behalf of the company. As the proceeding takes place, all witnesses must leave the courtroom until they have given their evidence. This makes the trial fair as the witnesses will not get effected by what the spokesperson of the company says.

Whilst giving evidence, the witness is allowed to request to look at their notebook and if there is no objection from the defence, they may use it to refresh their memory about the evidence. The defence can also request to look at the notebook to assure that the witness it giving true, accurate and correct evidence.

After the witness is done giving evidence, they may stay in the court with no interaction with the other witnesses who still have to give their evidence. This is fair as it means that the witness who has already given their evidence cannot tell the other witnesses about the questions asked by the defence resulting in more authentic answers.

Week 3- What is fair about the trail?
If a company must be taken to court, a spokesperson/representative for that company must be present to hear the verdict, and the trial following.

In order to maintain order in the court, witnesses must not speak unless spoken to (which leads to a smoother trial). Witnesses must also be absent during the beginning of the trial, until they have given their statement. This is so that the witnesses afterwards cannot change their statement to match someone else's.

Whilst giving statements, witnesses must speak slowly and clearly (avoiding slang and other inappropriate language, as well as words like "we", as it should be a personal statement) so that the prosecutors and other members of court can take notes with precision.

Witnesses are also able to look at notes which may have been taken on the day of the crime. In order to do so, the witness must have permission from everyone in the court (as well as the opposing side).

Week 3 – Giving evidence in Trial
Things that I found fair about the trial:
- Respect is maintained throughout the trial (strict rules such as only speaking when spoken to).
- Swear an oath (ensures lying or withholding information doesn’t happen).
- If a company is being prosecuted, someone from the company must be there to speak on its behalf.
- All remaining witnesses must leave the courtroom and are not allowed to hear proceedings until they have given their evidence (ensures that witnesses after cannot change their statements to match anothers.
- If a witness wishes to refer to a notebook, they must ask the magistrates and the defense if they have any objections.
- The witness must address the magistrates when giving evidence.
- Once the witness has given their evidence there can stay in the courtroom, but must not have any other contact with other witnesses that have not given evidence yet (again insuring that witnesses after cannot change their statements to match and become more authentic).

week 3- what is fair about this trial?
- when a company goes to trial they have a representative who hears the verdict
- witnesses can't hear proceedings until they give evidence to prevent contact with witnesses who have given evidence
- respect is given throughout the whole trial
- you're only able to speak when spoken to
- people swear on oath to prevent lying and fake evidence

week 3

one thing that i think makes the court fair is that all witnesses must leave the room before it begins. also, witnesses must make a witnesses statement before entering the court so that they cant alter their statement.

another thing that makes the court fair is that first-hand evidence is what the court will allow and if hearsay evidence wants to use the defence has to be given notice and give consent.

also, the witness must speak slowly so that the legal advisor can get all the notes they need to make the correct decision. also after cross-examination, the witness is questioned by the magistrates to clear any grey areas.

Week 3- “What is fair about the trial?”

During this trial, what is fair, is that all of the additional witnesses wait outside the court room. However, the expert witnesses can remain if there is no objection, in order to help the magistrates by giving their opinion and technical matters. The witnesses cannot leave the court until evidence is given. If the Magistrates think that the charge is too serious or if they cannot pass a sufficient sentence, they may commit the defendant to the Crown Court.

The prosecutor will take the witness through their statement, which is a procedure called “Evidence in Chief”. In this trial, the prosecutor helped the witness get them through their evidence properly and professionally. Only essential evidence is given that is relevant to the case, so that it is easier to summarise matters that the court needs to decide.

As the witness gives further evidence, the legal advisor will stop them if they are speaking too quickly or fail to address the bench. They will challenge the use of third person and jargon not to be used. If the witness states someone else’s evidence, the defence can object by saying its ‘Hearsay’ but only if agreed with the prosecution. They will then be cross-examined by the defence solicitor in order to probe and test the evidence and can therefore apply to have the evidence excluded. The Magistrates will then have the opportunity to question the witness if clarification is required.

Once the witness is called down, they can remain in court however they can have no contact with other witnesses. As well as this, during the lunch break, witnesses have to dine separately from those still to give evidence. They will have an option to bring an extra person who isn’t a witness so that they are not threatened.

As the trial continues, previous convictions or any other evidence of bad character should not be mentioned, unless it has been agreed with the prosecutor. What is fair about this trial is that the defence is also entitled to read the witness’ notebook which has to be a true and accurate account. Therefore, any notes not made at the time could be objected. As a result, the witness has to acknowledge their mistakes. It is up to the prosecution to establish a person’s guilt and not for the defence to establish their innocence.

Under the human rights legislation, once the verdict has been delivered and reasonings have been stated, both the prosecution and defence will agree the costs and compensation.

week 3- what is fair about this trial?

If a company is being prosecuted an authorised representative must be present to speak on its behalf. Before the trial begins all remaining witnesses must leave the court and they are unable to hear any of the proceedings until they have given their evidence this prevents any contact with other witnesses so they cannot change their statement to match someone else's. All witnesses must take an oath to prevent any lying and fake evidence. Witnesses must speak slowly and clearly so the legal advisor is able to take proper notes and they must not use any slang or jargon. When a piece of evidence is given the magistrates are able to make the decision whether to keep the evidence or not. If the witness would like to refer to any notes they must have permission from the whole court. It is also considered that an extra person who isn't in the case is taken into court so the remaining witness is not left alone due to previous occasions of witnesses being threatened when left alone. After any re examinations the magistrates are able to ask the witness any questions if they require clarifications. After all of this the witness is then unable to be called again but can stay in court to hear the proceedings.

Week 3- What is fair about this trial?
Before the trial, witnesses must wait outside the courtroom and once they are called in to give their evidence, they must remain inside the court so that they cant engage with any other witnesses who are yet to present their evidence.
Cross examination gives the defense solicitor an opportunity to exclude evidence presented by the prosecution and test witness statements. The prosecution can then bring up any points that the defense made during the cross examination.
The witnesses must ask for permission if they want to reference their notebook. The defense solicitor has a right to request that they quickly examine it to ensure that the information is accurate and professional.

week 3

If a company is being prosecuted, a person from the company must be in the court to speak on its behalf. Witnesses cannot hear proceedings until they have given their evidence, ensuring a fair trial as it means a witness cannot change their statement to match another witnesses statement.

Witnesses are allowed to request to look at their notebook whilst giving evidence, as long as there is no objection from defence so they can refresh their memory about the evidence. The defence can also request to look at their notebook to ensure that the witness is giving correct and accurate information.

An expert witness is allowed to stay in the courtroom during the whole trial as long as the defence and magistrates agree. This allows the magistrates to hear different opinions whilst allowing the expert witness to give their opinion based on facts.

Week 3 What is fair about the trial?,
When witness' are present in court they must not come into contact with any other witness that has not yet given their evidence in court, this allows the trial to stay confidential and unbiased. As well as this the only witness' allowed to be in court while the trial takes place are those that are experts and would need contextual evidence to use their expertise when taking the stand.

Also evidence that is shown to the magistrates has to be presented in a way that a witness keeps eye contact with the magistrates so that they can decide whether to disregard the evidence or use it for the prosecution. This allows possibly unreliable or fake evidence to be rid of so that if the defendant is charged it is on a reliable source meaning there can be justice in the Legal System.

Week 3, what is fair about the trial?
The trial is initially made fair by not allowing any of the witnesses to hear the trial before giving their evidence. I assume this is so the court has the account of the defence and the prosecution without them being influenced by what happens in the trial. Following this, the trial is kept fair and easy to follow by having the Magistrates call witnesses in order. As well as this, if a person has a valid reason such as their religion to not take oath, they are permitted to affirm. The person will be given a card with the contents of an oath or an affirm. This is fair because it respects the individuals circumstances and beliefs. The legal advisor is allowed to stop the person giving evidence to ensure they are being clear and sticking to their own evidence. This keeps everybody in the court on track. Once the Magistrates give the court their decision, they give reasoning to it also, this is fair because it is the defence's right to a fair trial. Overall, the trial is kept fair by allowing everyone their time to speak and making it clear for everybody.

Week 2
From watching the documentary of Sally Challen, i learnt that Sallys case and situation got to her physically and emotionally. From her husband of many years she felt as if she was belittled and manipulated as well as lied to.
I think that Sally found it hard to speak up about her situation to anyone els in fear of what the concrescence might have been from her husband, however after putting up with physical and mental abuse for so many years from her husband she felt as if she needed to take action.
Sally committed manslaughter by hitting her husband on the head with a hammer killing him.
Although Sally served her time in prison, her case was reviewed and look at closer in more detail and saw that Sally did not commit the murder to kill her husband, but to stop the pain and abuse she was going though as she could no longer cope with it.
It was then found that there was more to her case then just killing her husband but that Sally was physically and emotionally suffering leading her to do the things that she did.

Week 3, what is fair about the trial?

Firstly, the trail is fair as witnesses are not allowed to hear the trial before giving their evidence. As well as this, once they have given their evidence they are not allowed to confer with any witnesses who are yet to give their evidence. This is in case they discuss questions the defense solicitor asks the witness. The trial is also fair as an authorized representative of the company is required to be present to talk on the company's behalf. Also, when the verdict is given the reasoning behind the verdict is also given to the defended so they are able to understand how the court came to that decision and why its fair decision.

WEEK 1
A high-profile murder trial that was nearly de-railed 3 years ago, which the judge described to have caused an avalanche of prejudice comments on social media, which impacts the idea on updating laws to correspond with the growth in social media. The case was highly abnormal as 2 young girls, age of 13 and 14 murdered a woman using household utensils, and caused outbursts of prejudice assumptions on social platforms and onto newspapers as people found this case to be utterly unfair to the defendants. The result was that the trial judge had to discharge the jury and relocate the trial to another city where the atmosphere was less febrile, and was delayed for some months. This not only distressed the victims, family and witnesses but also the defendants and the judge, and was a very expensive process.

Week 3- whats fair about the trial?

The witnesses had to follow strict rules to insure the trial is fair and is the same another trials, the rules were all witnesses weren’t allowed in the court while other people give their evidence. They call the witnesses in chronological order, so they can keep track of everything. While giving evidence you should follow the usher to the witness book, look at the solicitors when they ask the questions but answer towards the magistrates, don’t ramble and us jargon, ask permission if they want to look at their notebook, speak slowly so people can understand and so the person taking notes can get all the information. They have to make sure their phone is turned off while in the courtroom.
At the lunch break witness who have given their evidence cant dine with witnesses who haven’t given their witness.
The last witness can’t be outside alone incase they get threatened while others are givning there evidence

Week 3 - What is fair about trial ?

What Was fair about the court :

- Courtroom etiquette must be maintained throughout court as it makes it easier for magistrates to have control of their courtroom settings and procedures and dictate who can speak when and what is valid at this time. Having a respectful attitude in the courtroom is important as it can help either the defendant or witness get the outcome that they wish for as magistrates in courts take character references into account.
- With this type of court case procedure if a company is being prosecuted a authorized representative can speak on behalf of the company. This is fair as it means the company has someone to speak for them and can clarify any questions about the business if called upon.
- All Witness' must leave the courtroom until chronologically called in to give evidences and testify against this is to make sure their statements can not be tampered with in order to fit the needs for themselves. They shall only remain in court after giving evidence, this is fair as it means no other witness will be influenced to speak on something they don't know about and give a false allegation.
- Another section where fairness is shown in the courts is for people who are last to give evidence. The last witness' are in titled to bring a non witness out with them for support as some accounts of witness' being left alone have come back that they have been threatened by the opposite party to intimidate witness and made them not speak the truth for their own good.
- If founded guilty magistrates must give a reasoning for why they decided to convict you for this offense.
- The court advise if a lunch break is given witness' must dine away from other witness' as this is another way of courts dismissing any changes of statement and information being passed on about the type of questions defendants may ask, this is fair instructions as the upcoming witness' that are awaiting to be questioned could have answers prepared and not tell the full truth as they have altered responses.
- If witness' need to refer back to their notebook for extra information the prosecutors must ask the magistrates and defense for acceptance and if they have any objection.In some cases the defense team may ask (once magistrates accepts) if they can check to see the witness notes to make sure they are clear and are not been newly written to ensure no one has made them add in new information.
- Witness' must look and speak towards the magistrates this is fair because it shows the magistrates you are truthful and your response is authentic because you can look at them and hold contact because you are telling the truth, it also shows you are respectful and thankful that they are dealing with your case in this court
- All witness' or anyone who takes the stand takes oath or affirm which is to swear by to tell nothing but the truth. The fact that all courts make witness do this is fair because it shows all witness' get treated the same even if you are religious or not and still have a way to tell the truth which if religious you swear under oath or if you affirm you repeat a small paragraph on a paper which still means you will be truthful.

Is sentencing in the UK fair? Week 4
I do believe sentencing is fair in the UK. They have 3 different offences with more minor offences, summary offences, receiving less punishment.

Many things are also considered when deciding a sentence. For example, with Burglary if the victims were in the house and the offence took place at night the offender will revive a tougher punishment due to adding more distress to the victims. I believe this is fair as he is doing more damage emotionally to the victims.

Also, if the offender steals items with sentimental value then the judge can decide on a tougher sentence. I believe this is fair to a certain extend as the victims will be more affected if a sentimental item is stolen. However the offender may not know whether they are stealing a sentimental object or not and it may not be intentional.

The Judge can also give a lighter sentence to somebody who is genuinely coming off drugs.This is because this can act as the first step from coming away from crime. I believe this is fair as it gives the offender a chance to live a crime free life in the future and prevent future offences.

Week 4 - Is sentencing in the UK fair?
Sentencing in the UK uses 5 clear aims of sentencing:
1. Punishment/Retribution (the punishment reflects the severity of the crime).
2. Deterrence (preventing people from committing crimes in the future. Either general - putting the public off by letting them know what will happen if they do. Or individual - preventing the offender from re-offending).
3. Rehabilitation (to reform the offender and try to 'cure' their behaviour, however this is becoming more difficult to achieve due to overcrowding prisons).
4. Public Protection (preventing the offender from harming the public - particularly crimes of a violent or sexual nature).
5. Reparation (when the offenders provide 'remedies' for the victim or community, such as compensation, letters of apology, or un-paid community work).

They also take into consideration 2 different sentencing factors:
- Aggravating Factors (which include a harsher sentence due to things such as; previous convictions; use of a weapon; gang activity etc...)
- Mitigating Factors (which includes a more lenient sentence due to things such as; young offender; no previous convictions; offers to compensate the victim etc...)

For example, the interactive sentencing activity that I took part in was the murder of 89yr old Arthur Ramsey. Aggravating factors such as the fact that the attack was deliberate, repeated and on an elderly man have the ability to make the sentence harsher. However, it is down to the judge's discretion what weight to give each of them.
If the offender suffered from an ongoing mental disorder, the judge could give a lighter sentence as it is classed as a mitigating factor. However, if the mental disorder was caused by alcohol or drugs, as it was in this case, the judge would give a tougher sentence. Therefore, it is an aggravating factor.

A lighter sentence is also given if the offender initially pleads guilty as it would avoid the need for a trial and save the victims, their families and witnesses from the worry of giving evidence.

After considering these factors, I believe that sentencing in the UK is far from fair. This is because there are too many factors to weigh in. Judge 's decisions are also subjective as their opinions can be affected by things such as; their own personal background and beliefs; meaning that different judges could give different sentences on the same case.

Week 4- Is sentencing fair in the UK?
After watching the video and completing the interactive task, I don't think sentencing is very fair.

There are 4 different types of sentencing, those being custodial, community, fines and discharges. Although each type is effective in some way, they also each have their down sides.

For example, custodial sentences are the worst type of sentence one can receive, usually for crimes such as murder and violent/ sexual offences. Prison time can last from anywhere between 3 years, to life imprisonment. Although prison is sure to discipline and help prevent offenders from committing more crimes, it can also be considered as counter productive. Being imprisoned means that a criminal is exposed to other criminals in a negative environment, which has major psychological effects, and could mean the defendant commits crimes once released.

Community sentences are for less serious offences, which require the defendant to contribute in unpaid community work, and they may need to attend drug treatment therapy programmes to help them decrease the likelihood of committing more crimes. Although this punishment helps makes amends to the victim, it doesn't help the defendant drop bad habits. It's considered as "not a real punishment".

Fines is the most commonly used sentence. This sentence has no set maximum or minimum amount, and the defendants finances must be taken into account, to ensure a fair fine. This sentence also does not make the defendants family suffer- unlike a custodial and community sentence- and is considered more fair then other sentences. However, some defendants (1/3) get away without paying this fine, and are not paid. This does not deliver justice to the victim, as the criminal has simply got away with the crime.

Discharges is the last type of sentence. This sentence can only be delivered when the defendant is found guilty, there is no fixed sentence, and the court thinks that any other punishment would be inappropriate. There are two different types, absolute and conditional. Both sentences mean the defendant is free to go, but for a conditional sentence, if another crime is committed within 3 years, then the defendant will be charged for the original and new crime. But, similarly to the fines sentence, it is seen as an "easy way out", and does not satisfy the victim.

Overall, I believe that sentencing in the UK is reasonably fair, as these sentences are all effective in their own right. It is hard to find a sentence that balances punishing only the criminal, giving the victim peace of mind and finding the best sentence which will benefit the criminal and stop them from committing further offences. I think the justice system has a long way to go before all these points are met.

Week 4: Is sentencing in the UK fair?
In some ways, I agree with Uk sentencing and other ways I don't for there are many factors that have to be taken into consideration when trying to achieve a fair and correct sentence for the crime that has been committed.
These factors include:
-The type of crime
-The law and sentencing guidelines
-The offender’s criminal history
-The offender’s personal and financial circumstances
By taking all of these into consideration at all, I do think it gives offenders a better chance at achieving the sentence which is appropriate for the crime committed. This was evident in the Sally Challen case of which first proved her to be a murderer but then after further investigation and the 'criminals' history explained, she sentence was changed to something more fitting and fair but also having to pay for the new sentence as well which served as 'justice'. Another reason why I believe that Uk sentencing is fair is that it gives both sides of the case to have the time of which can help to settle the case without having to take it through the courts directly. If this fails and it still enters the court, the sentencing laws also allow time for appeals to be made and allow a change of a second decision to be made.
On the other hand, I also believe that the UK legal system allows for too much opportunity that can be an advantage to those who are indeed guilty with no remorse a chance to gain a sentence of which looks fitting for the crime but doesn't actually serve justice to the victim. An example of this would be a person who drank drove and then caused a fatality. I believe that although many would see this as manslaughter that the true sentence should be murder, as the person at fault committed two crimes by not only drink driving but also then causing death as well.
In conclusion, as a majority, the legal system does achieve overall justice for many with the right sentences being achieved the majority of the time however on some occasions the legal system can misjudge the case and show either too much mercy or not enough on the offender, which can make some question whether the system is fair ever time.

Week 4- Is sentencing fair in the UK sentencing?
In my opinion I think that sentencing is fair in the UK. When deciding the sentence of the defendant judges take many factors into account to make the sentence as fair as possible for all sides. Some of the factors include:
• The criminal history of the defendant
• When the crime took place
• The defendants personal life
• Drug involvement
• Weapons used
These factors are known as mitigating and aggravating factor, the judge will use these to make a more lenient or harsh sentence for the defendant. Aggravating factors a more likely to make the judge give a harsh sentence and mitigating factors may cause the judge to pass a more lenient sentence

For example if a Burglary happened in the night the defendant will receive a harsher punishment as it causes more distress to the victims. Also if the victims where in the house at the time of the Burglary the defendant will also receive a harsher sentence. However if the defendant is young or has a hard family life the judge is more likely to pass a lighter sentence.

In conclusion I think sentencing in the UK is fair as the judges make the sentence as fair as possible for everyone, taking into account all the sentencing factors. Without sentencing the chance of the defendant rebelling or committing a crime again is most likely to be higher therefore they haven’t learnt from their mistakes and will keep committing crimes.

week 4- is sentencing in the UK fair?
I think that overall, sentencing in the UK is fair however sometimes it is unfair.
It can sometimes be unfair because a criminal can be advised to show signs of mitigation like remorse when on trial. They can also claim to have issues such as a mental health disorder (even if they don't.) This is also a mitigating factor and both of these examples can lead to a criminal serving a lenient sentence and justice not being served correctly. I am also shocked that pleading guilty early on can lead to a 33% reduction in the sentence length and don't think this should be a factor. This is because in my opinion, the majority of criminals would just plead guilty to get their sentence shortened unless they have been wrongly accused of a crime.
However, I think that in most cases, sentencing is fair because there are a multitude of factors which go into deciding the sentence length for a criminal and the aggravating and mitigating factors are both weighed up against each other, along with factors like whether the criminal has a criminal record, their age etc.

Week 4- Is sentencing fair in the UK?

I think is it fair because every trial has set rules that the judge has to follow when sentencing a defendant. There is a minimum and maximum penalty you can give someone, this depends on the extent of the crime.
If its murder it will obviously be a custodial sentence, the aggravating and mitigating factors determine how long the prison sentence is but if it’s a smaller crime like threatening behaviour, prison is an extreme sentence and it if more likely to be community service or if it’s got more mitigating factors a fine. To give a fine they have to see if the defendant if able to pay this fine, so they vary in size.
In all crimes if you plead guilty at the earliest point you get 1/3 of your sentence, this is fair as it is carried out in all trials as it means there doesn’t have to be a jury, the victim/victims family don’t have to go through that trauma again and witnesses don’t have to be called in.

Week 4: Is sentencing fair in the UK?

I believe sentencing is fair in the UK as there are many factors that are looked into before judgement can be passed. These factors may include the following:
-Weapon involvement
-Criminal history
-Defendant's plea
-Abusive substance usage
-Defendant's personal life [e.g. if the defendant has a child/children]
- Etc

Each trial has specific guidelines and rules that the judge is to follow when determining a sentence for the defendant. The factors above are divulged as either mitigating factors or aggravating factors. This will allow the judge to come to a fair judgement, whilst also taking in these factors as they determine the leniency or harshness of the sentence for the defendant.

On the extent of the crime, there is a minimum and maximum of how long a sentence can be given. However, if the defendant pleads guilty at the first available opportunity or early within the case, you will be able to have 1/3 off of your sentence. This is the case as it has saved time for the court, whilst giving reassurance to possible injured parties, where they will not have to suffer any other trauma. It also has no need for witnesses.

In closing, I believe that sentencing is fair in the UK as there are set guidelines for the judge to follow, where it determines the gravity of the defendant's sentencing. Sentencing allows a safer community, whilst also allowing the defendant to see what they did was wrong. If sentencing was too lenient, then the crime rate would be quite high, where the defendant would relapse and commit other crimes.

Week 4- Is sentencing fair in the UK?
In the UK sentencing as 5 main aims/ purposes under S 142 Criminal Justice Act 2003: 'Any court dealing with an (adult) offender in respect of his offence must have regard to the following purposes of sentencing' which are punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, public protection and reparation.

I believe sentencing in the UK is fair because the Judge can decide on the duration and type of sentence to be given based of the seriousness of the offence. ( S 2(2) Criminal Justice Act 1991 'The punishment should reflect the severity of the crime.')

When deciding on the sentence, the Judge must take the aggravating and mitigating factors into account. Aggravating factors could be anything that make a harsher sentence more likely for instance if the victim was vulnerable, if the offender has any previous convictions, if the crime was racially motivated or gang activity, or if there was a breach of position of trust. Mitigating factors on the other hand could be anything that make a lenient sentence more likely. These could be things like, the age of the defendant (young offenders), if the offender has no previous convictions, if the offender makes an early guilty plea, if the offender shows remorse or if the offender attempts to compensate the victim.

Also considering the different types of sentences an offender can receive (custodial sentences, community sentences, discharges and fines), I believe that the court can come to a fair decision about the specific case at hand using both the guidelines given to them and their own initiative to come to a just conclusion.

Week 3

The behaviour and mood of the court must be subdued and with decent etiquette (like respect for opposing parties) in order for the magistrates to make an accurate reading and to reduce the chance of error. Witnesses must be kept away from each other during lunch breaks, if provided, and be removed from the court during proceedings that don't require their presence in order to have a fair sentencing without falsehood. Witnesses are also required to swear by an oath to tell the truth to also deter them from falsehood and thus making the sentencing fairer. When asked to the stand, witnesses must face the magistrates so they can't make eye contact with any other and try to relay a message or such. When sentencing, magistrates must give a detailed and plausible reason for their actions and explain to the parties their reasons for doing so. If a case seems too extreme the court can send the case to the crown court because they would probably give the case better judgement and make it fairer.

Week 3- What is fair about trial?

- If a certain case is far too serious for their jurisdiction, they may sent the defendant to crown court.
- While court is in session, witnesses must wait outside to allow the Magistrates speak freely without risk of witnesses changing or tampering with the evidence they will present to the court.
- The defendant may ask permission for a witness to stay in court throughout the case for whatever reason, for example, if the witness was sharing their opinion rather facts, because of special experience or knowledge. A witness allowed to stay in court is called an expert witness.
- If you have no religious beliefs or follow a religion that doesn't permit you to take an oath or even if circumstances make it impractical, you may "affirm".
-It is important to have good etiquette and manner in court and address the Magistrates respectfully. It is also important to stay calm and speak slowing so that the legal advisor may take notes.
- Cross-examination means the defence will test and robe at different parts of the evidence presented and follow up questions are allowed. Although it may be tempting to argue with the defence but you need to stand your ground and not allow them to mold your evidence into something that suits them.
- Re-examination by the prosecutor is allowed in which the prosecution is only allowed to ask further questions of the ones already asked by the defence.
- If the Magistrates' require any clarification they may go on to ask questions of their own.
- Witnesses that have already been on the stand may not interact with remaining witnesses by any way, shape or form to prevent the tampering of evidence yet to be presented. During the lunch break this rule still continues as follows and the witnesses are asked to sit apart and not speak to the others.
- Cautions must always be read to the witnesses so there can be no debate as to whether the caution was properly administrated.
- Under Humans Rights Legislation, not only is the verdict delivered but also the reasoning behind their decision. This is part os the defendants right to a fair trial.

Week 4: Is sentencing fair in the UK?

In my opinion, I do think that sentencing is fair in the UK because the court have many things to consider such as; the aims of sentencing, the sentencing factors and the types of sentences which are really important as it reflects the severity of the crime.

The aims of sentencing include five main factors:
-Punishment: helps take revenge on behalf of the victim and society
-Deterrence: prevents people committing crimes again in the future
-Rehabilitation: in order to reform the offender and try to prevent criminal behaviour
-Public Protection: prevents the offender from harming the public
-Reparation/Restorative Justice: provides remedies to the victims or the community. These include compensation, letters of apology or unpaid work in the community.

I think that the most important part that makes sentencing in the UK fair are the sentencing factors. The aggravating factors include making a harsher sentence more likely, a vulnerable victim, previous convictions, breach a position of trust, a use of a weapon or the crime being racially motivated. Whereas the mitigating factors include making a more lenient sentence, having a young defendant, the defendant having no previous convictions, there is an early guilty plea, the defendant has showed remorse or have attempted to compensate the victim.

This then leads on to the types of sentences that can be given, for example, custodial sentences, community sentences, fines or discharges. To conclude, the court will decide the final sentence depending on the seriousness of the offence in order to make the sentencing fair as each trial has specific guidelines to follow.

Week 4- Is sentencing fair in the UK?

In my opinion, I do think that sentencing is fair in the UK. Sentences can be given for 5 different reasons:

1. To punish the offender- This can be done by sending them to prison, doing community service, obeying a curfew, or paying a fine. (All depends on the extremity of the crime committed)
2. To reduce the crime- To prevent the offender from committing any other crimes and/ or set examples for the other people of the public.
3. Reform and rehabilitate offenders- to fix and improve the behaviour of an offender.
4. Protect the public- Protect the public from any offenders and risks of more crimes.
5. Make the offender give something back- A type of payment of compensation or through restorative justice.

With these 5 reasonings also comes sentencing guidelines which consists of the processes they should follow and certain factors that they must consider in order to give and correct and fair punishment to the offender. Each crime is unique and because of this each crime has a range of sentences, that will be considered by the magistrate or judge, (depending on the severity of the crime) to decide which is the most appropriate.
The judge/ magistrate will have to consider the severity of the crime, the harm done to the victim, how the offender pleads, any past circumstances, whether they were intoxicated or mentally unstable during the time the crime was committed and lastly if they criminal record. these factors will determine which type of sentence is received and how long will said sentence be, certain requirements and amount.
All these rules, regulations and factors are vital in determining a justifiable punishment for the offender and I believe that they make the decision by the judge or magistrate fair.

I think the UK sentencing system is fair as they take all aspects into consideration for example: under s142 Criminal Justice Act 2003 - ‘Any court dealing with an (adult) offender in respect of his offence must have regard to the following purposes of sentencing:’ which are the punishment of the offenders, the deterrence towards crime, the rehabilitation of offenders, the protection of the public and the reparations towards those who are affected. Punishment can also be referred to retribution and it is about taking revenge on behalf of both the victim and society, s2(2) Criminal Justice Act 1991 states the punishment should reflect the severity of the crime. Deterrence is preventing people committing crimes in the future, general deterrence refers to putting general public off committing crimes by letting them see the consequences of the crime, however individual deterrence is putting individuals off re-offending. An example of the individual deterrence if the Detention Centre Orders under the Criminal Justice Act 1982 which was intended to give offenders the reality and to shock them. A General Deterrence example is the harsh sentences imposed by the Magistrates following the London riots in 2011. The aims of rehabilitation is to reform the offender and to try and stop his criminal behaviour or become less likely to offend in the future, however rehabilitation is difficult to achieve in our overcrowded prisons. Public protection is targeted at preventing the offended from harming the public - it particularly applies to crimes of a violent or sexual nature, this can be successfully done through imprisonment although prisons very expensive. Reparation (restorative justice) is about offenders providing remedies to their victims or the community, this can be the victim being paid compensation, receive letters of apology, and have a say in how the harm they have suffered can be put right. Offenders can also perform unpaid work in the community. When sentencing the judge and magistrates must take into account aggravating factors and mitigating factors, this will affect the level of sentencing that is passed. Aggravating factors have situations that include vulnerable victims, the offender has previous convictions, has breached the position of trust, used a weapon or has participated in racially motivated/gang activity - these factors are more likely to make the judge pass a harsher sentence. Mitigating factors include the defendant being young, they have no pervious convictions, have pleaded guilty at an early stage, have shown remorse or has attempted to compensate the victim - these can cause the judge to make a more lenient sentence. The four main sentences are custodial sentences, community sentences, fines or discharges. Custodial sentences are the most serious types of sentences as the defendant is deprived of their freedom of being put into prison or a Young Offenders’ Institution. s152(2) Criminal Justice Act 2003 states that the court must not pass a custodial sentence unless it is of the opinion that the offence was so serious that neither a fine nor a community sentence can be justified for the offence. Custodial sentences are suitable for violent or sexual offences because they protect the public by removing criminals from the general population, these sentences may also be offered to help with rehabilitation when in prison (such as drug treatment or education programmes) to try and reduce the risk of reoffending. Despite this 59% of prisoners reoffend within two years of being released, near to 75% of people on short sentences reoffend within one year. Community sentences must contain a punitive element under the Crime and Courts Act 2013 (included unpaid work, a drug rehabilitation requirements or a curfew requirements). These sentences are flexible as the judge can choose the requirements of the Community Order to fit the offender and his sentencing aims. Fines are the most commentary imposed sentences and must take into account the defendant’s financial state - the fine has to reflect the seriousness of the offence as well as the ability of the offender to pay. 75% of offenders in the Magistrates court received fines in 2000. Fines are calculated based on income and there is not maximum level of fine for serious offence. However many offenders are low income or on benefits and may struggle to pay a fine, which is unfair. One third of all fines are never paid and in 2004-5 £75million worth of fines had to be cancelled - due to this fines are an inadequate punishment for violent offences. In some cases when a defendant is found guilty there is no fixed sentence and the court thinks that a punishment us inappropriate, is can order an absolute or conditions charge. An absolute discharge is when the defendant is free to go, and is used where the defendant is legally to blame but morally blameless. A conditional discharge is when no further action is taken unless the defendant reoffends within a set period of up to three years, this can be used where the defendant’s conduct is legally and morally incorrect but there are strong mitigating factors - however if the defendant reoffends within the period he will be sentenced for the original crimes but if the does not the will not have a criminal record.

Week 4 - Is sentencing fair in the UK?

I believe that sentencing is fair in the UK because of the many factors in which the judge will consider. The aims of sentencing are to punish the offender, reduce crime (deterrence), to reform and rehabilitate offenders, protect the public, and for offenders to make reparation to the victims of their crimes. There is a minimum and maximum sentence that can be given to the offender which can be modified due to the different sentencing factors. As stated in s2(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, the punishment should reflect the severity of the crime, meaning that there is no set sentence and that each case has different circumstances, resulting in the offender getting the sentence that they deserve.

Aggravating factors, such as vulnerable victims and previous convictions, are then balanced with the mitigating factors, such as if the defendant is young or has showed remorse, to determine the severity of the punishment. If a defendant pleads guilty at the start of the case they may also get up to a 1/3 off of their sentence. This is because they avoid the need for a trial and it saves victims and witnesses from the worry of giving evidence. Although this provides less stress for the victims, I do not agree with this as if an offender pleads guilty at the start of the case then they will receive a shortened sentence for a crime in which they may have deserved a longer sentence for.

Overall, I think that sentencing is fair in the UK because of the many guidelines and rules that the judge has to follow in order to decide the sentence, and also that they take into account the specific details of the case and the offender's personal circumstances.

week 4 - is sentencing fair in the UK

I think that sentencing within the UK is fair because the judges follow strict guidelines when sentencing a defendant , a judge’s role is not to make law, but to uphold and apply the laws made by Parliament. The laws must be interpreted and applied by the judges to different cases, and this includes guidelines on the appropriate sentence. This stops the judges making personal decisions or influenced by the media if it's a significant case.

Another reason why I think the UK justice system is fair is because defendants who have been prosecuted have the option to appeal their case to a panel of experts called the magistrate. This allows for any failings within their case from the side of the police or the investigation that led to the prosecution of the defendant to be exploited and the sentenced to be corrected. Also during the investigation of the crime that had been committed , the defendant is legally allowed to have access to a lawyer or a solicitor , these people offer advice and support during their time in custody and during their investigation. The solicitors are free unless you have a personal defence lawyer.

The sentencing for every case is independently viewed and assessed due to the severity of their crimes and there is no set sentence for a crime only a recommended time , however it is up to a jury who are randomly selected with no connection to the defendant , to assess if the person is guilty or not.

Week 4, is sentencing fair in the UK?
I think sentencing is fair in the UK. One reason is because the UK justice system offers different types of sentencing for different types of crimes. This is fair because it is appropriate for each crime, as it is treated as an individual case and not grouped in with every crime. For example, violent or sexual offences will not be given the same punishment as parking in a wrong space. The judge is given four options; custodial sentences, community sentences, fines and discharges. Each of them have their own advantages and disadvantages but they are there so each crime is given the appropriate punishment, therefore making the sentencing system fair in the UK.

Week 4 - Is sentencing fair in the UK?

Personally, I think that sentencing in the UK is pretty fair.

One reason I think this because the court will take into account different factors as to whether or not to make the sentencing more lenient or harsher. These factors could be aggravating factors or mitigating factors. Aggravating factors will make the sentencing harsher, some examples of aggravating factors include if the victim is vulnerable, if the defendant has any previous convictions or if the crime was racially motivated. Mitigating factors will make the sentencing more lenient, some examples of mitigating factors include if the defendant is young, if they have no previous convictions or if they plea guilty from an early stage.

Another reason I think that sentencing in the UK is fair is that the court has different sentences depending on the crime committed. The sentences include custodial sentences, community sentences, fines, and discharges. Even though each of these has its advantages and disadvantages, I think this makes sentencing in the UK fair as it means that the defendant will be punished according to the crime they committed. For example, if someone commits murder they are not going to be charged with a fine, they are going to be given a custodial charge.

Week 5 - Solicitors & Barristers
On March 8th 2020, I went to the University of London and took part in an InvestIN program - Young Lawyers. I spent the whole day in a lecture theatre, learning about what it means to be a lawyer and all the different jobs within that title. We learnt about key skills needed, the qualifications, the different paths needed for solicitors and barristers and so on and so forth.

A solicitor's job is to provide advice on the law to clients and act on their behalf when they have law-related issues. They rarely go to court, however some can do advocacy. Solicitors gather the information needed for the particular case and inform the barrister. They work closely with the barristers. There are many different areas that a solicitor can work in, such as; family law; commercial law; human rights law; criminal law etc...
It is difficult to become a solicitor and so to increase your chances, you will need to maximise your grades as well as your skills, such as; organisation; public speaking; confidence etc... Getting local law firm experience, going to court and getting industry internships (not law) will also increase your chances. Extra-curricular activities also show that you are a well-rounded person and that you have dedication.
It takes around 10yrs to become a partner, which is when you would own part of a law firm (and your pay also increases). As a solicitor, your wage is measured by the billable hour, as you record every 6 minutes of your day.
To become a solicitor, you will need to follow either one of these paths:
1 - A Levels, Undergraduate LLB degree (3yrs), LPC (1yr), Training contract (payed for by the firm), Solicitor.
2 - A Levels, Undergraduate non-law degree (3yrs), Postgraduate GDL - conversion course - (1yr), LPC (1yr), Training contract (payed for by the firm), Solicitor.


A barrister is a person called to the bar and is entitled to practice advocacy. They are self employed and instructed by the solicitor. Barristers stand up in court and represent the client.
Becoming a barrister is much harder than becoming a solicitor and so getting a lot of experience is key to increasing your chances, as well as taking the Bar exam! However, the same things that apply to increasing your chances as a solicitor also apply to that of a Barrister. From the InvestIn program, I learnt that the biggest secret to making your chances skyrocket is marshalling (shadowing a judge) and mini-pupillages (shadowing barristers).
A barristers pay depends on what area of law they work in. For example, commercial law usually pays very well, whereas lagal aid barristers wouldn't usually be paid as much. Location also matters. Barristers in London will be paid more due to the increased price of living. The largest and most prestigious chambers are also usually located in London.
To become a barrister you can take either one of these paths:
1 - A Levels, Undergraduate LLB (3yrs), BPTC - Bar Exam (1yr), 12 qualifying sessions, Pupillage (1yr), Barrister.
2 - A levels, Undergraduate non-law degree (3yrs), Postgraduate GDL (1yr), BPTC - Bar Exam (1yr), 12 qualifying sessions, Pupillage (1yr), Barrister.

I'm not sure which I want to be as they are both thorougly interesting professions. My dad was a Family Law Solicitor and so I've always been interested in becoming a Solicitor. However, the independence of a Barrister and being in charge of my own career also appeals to me.

Week 5 - Solicitors and Barristers
The main difference between a solicitor and a barrister is that one mainly stays behind the eyes of court whilst the other appears directly before it. Solicitors are the ones that do the legal work outside of court which involve advising clients and drafting legal documents such as wills and divorces. On the occasion a solicitor can appear before the court however most of their work is dedicated to the legal work behind.
Barristers work at a higher level than most solicitors as they are the people that are representing their clients directly in court. They are usually self-employed and work in Chambers with other Barristers. They can also be direct with a bank or big cooperation as their own legal representative. For their work they are given details of the case to review by the client’s solicitor and then given time to repair the clients plead.
To become a Solicitor there are three main ways this can be done:
 complete a qualifying law degree, followed by the Legal Practice Course (LPC)
 complete a non-law degree then take the Common Professional Examination (CPE) or Graduate Diploma in Law (GDL) conversion course, followed by the LPC
To become a Barrister, you will have to:
 Must first complete an academic stage of training, followed by a work-based (vocational) stage and practical experience (called a pupillage).
This can be gained by either an approved law degree – known as a qualifying law degree – at class 2:2 or above or a degree at 2:2 or above in any other subject, followed by a postgraduate Common Professional Examination (CPE) or Graduate Diploma in Law (GDL)
Personally, I would prefer to be a Solicitor due to the fact I feel like they are able to have a much personal connection to their clients as well as being the people who actually performs and presents the materials of which will help the case despite not always being the one who is able to achieve the result in court directly. My ideal job would be a family solicitor who would be able to help families going through difficult times achieve the results they need. This would include settling divorces that have child custody issues as well as helping children who have had a rough time get the best for the future.
One thing I would like to research further is how qualifying to become a solicitor can lead to other jobs such as working for bigger organizations or professions.

Week 5- Solicitors and Barristers

A Solicitors job is to provide advice on the law to clients, and often act on the clients behalf. They rarely go to court, but they work closely with barristers. It's very hard to become one, as you must have lots of experience, and be good at things like public/clear speaking, etc.
There are also many types of law, such as criminal law, family law, copyright law and many more. The wage for a solicitor is measured by the billable hour

Qualifications:
One path you can take is as follows:
- A Levels (preferably in Law), Undergraduate LLB (3 years), LPC (1 year), training contract.

A Barrister is someone who is self employed, and stands to represent a person in court. In order to get this job, you must have lots of good qualifications and experience, as it is a big responsibility. The pay depends on 2 things... what field of law you work in (certain areas are more high paying than others) and where about you live. If you live in a big city such as London, you will get paid more.

Qualifications:
One path you can take is as follows:
- A Levels, Undergraduate LLB (3 years), BPTC-Bar Exam (1 year), 12 qualifying sessions (1 year)

Week 4- Is sentencing fair in the UK?
I think that sentencing in the UK is fair because Judges must consider several factors before deciding on a suitable punishment. They follow strict guidelines and must take into account the aggravating and mitigating factors. For example, previous convictions, use of a weapon or a vulnerable victim will make the defendant more likely to receive a harsher sentence. Whereas if the defendant shows remorse or takes an early guilty plea, they save the victim from having to relive the experience, which could result in up to a third off their sentence. Defendants can receive four types of sentences (custodial sentence, community sentence, fines or discharges) and it reflects the severity of the crime. This means that individual cases will be looked at in depth and the punishments issued will be fair.

week 5 - solicitors and barristers

Barrister ~ a type of lawyer in common law jurisdictions , they mostly specialise in courtroom advocacy and litigation. Their tasks include taking cases in superior courts and tribunals, drafting legal pleadings , researching the philosophy , hypothesis and history of law, and giving expert legal opinions.

To become a barrister you need :
*an approved law degree at class 2.2 and above
*a degree (class 2.2) in another subject
*vocational training
*pupillage ( training to become a barrister)


Solicitors ~ they act on behalf of and give legal advice to private and commercial clients. Once qualified solicitors often specialise in one legal area such as family, litigation , property or tax. Solicitors working in commercial law firms advise large corporate clients on transactions or cases

To become a solicitor you need :
*complete a qualifying law degree followed by a legal practise course (LPC)


I would rather become a solicitor that specialises in commercial practice as the work in contract law and business concerns which is the industry i want to work in the future.

SOLICITORS
• Solicitor’s roles largely depend on what type of firm they are employed by
• They are usually a clients first point of contact with the legal profession
• Solicitors provide legal advice and negotiate on behalf of their clients. They also do advocacy work which means they appear in court on behalf of their clients. This means they are limited pre-trail hearings in the lower courts unless they do an extra qualification which means they can appear in high courts, these solicitors are known as solicitors advocates
• The work of solicitors can be contentious which means court work is involved or non-contentious which means no court involved.
The work can include:
• Acting as a first contact with clients needing legal advice
• Acting as advocates for clients, generally in the lower courts
• Giving legal advice to clients on arrange of specialist areas
• Organizing a barrister for their client if the case goes to crown court or higher court
• Writing letters on their clients behalf on legal matters
• Drafting contracts or other legal documents
• They generally work in private practice but they can work for large businesses who have a legal department or local authorities

REGULATION OF SOLICITORS
Regulation of the legal profession is vital in order to ensure a safe, secure and responsible environment for lawyers and their clients. If there were no specific regulation, lawyers could act unprofessionally or negligently without recourse and their clients would have little redress against them.
The solicitor’s regulatory authority regulates solicitor, which is an independent body, which seeks to ensure that high standards are maintained. They:
• Sets the standards for qualifying as a solicitor
• Sets the rules for professional conduct
• Monitors performance of solicitors
• Handles complaints
• Operates a compensation fund for clients who have lost money as a result of a solicitors dishonesty

HOW TO QUALIFY
To qualify there are two ways, the traditional way is to study for a three qualifying law degree which includes core subjects, this is then followed by completion of the legal practice course, which is a post graduate course which lasts a year if taken full time or 2 years if take part time, it costs between £10,000 to £15,000. Once the legal practice course is completed the student will hope to obtain a training contact with a law firm this is paid employment and lasts 2 years during which the training solicitor must gain contentious and non-contentious experience. Once this stage is completed successfully the training solicitor is admitted to a role of solicitors and becomes fully qualified
Alternatively students can opt for a non-law degree to begin with however this means a extra year post graduate study is required in order to obtain understanding of the core elements of a law degree, this course is known as a graduate diploma in law and takes a year following which the student can progress to the legal practice course.


BARRISTERS
• Barristers are self-employed advocates who practice out of chambers, sharing administrative staff.
• They are specialist advocates with higher rights of audience.
• Although the majority of barristers work involves advocacy in court, they also provide expert opinions to solicitors on complex points of law and draft complicated documents for them. They will often do pre-trail meetings with solicitors and witness known as conferences with council
Their work can include:
• Being briefed by a solicitor on behalf of a client or approached directly in certain civil matters
• Rights of audience in all courts to represent clients, particularly the crown court or higher courts
• Acting and opinion on the merits of a case called counsels opinion
• If appointed as queens council handling very serious or complex cases
• Drafting legal documents for court

REGULATION OF BARRISTERS
The bar standards board whose duties include regulates barristers:
• Setting the education and training requirements of barristers
• Setting the standards of conduct for barristers
• Monitoring the service provided by barristers
• Handling complaints against barristers taking disciplinary action where required

HOW TO QUALIFY
Barristers can complete either a 3 year law degree or a non law degree followed by the graduate diploma in law following this they go on to take bar professional training course which is a post graduate course focusing on the specialist skills and knowledge required to pass as a barrister, this lasts for one year if taken full time or 2 years if taken part time. The course costs between £13,000 to £18000. At this point the student has to join one of the four inns of court and are required to complete 12 qualifying session at this inn before they are ‘called to the bar’ which is becoming a qualified barrister. Although the student may complete all of these stages this doesn’t mean that they have a job as a barrister, first they must secure a must sort after training post in the barristers chambers know as a pupillage. The battle to secure pupillage is extremely competitive. The pupillage lasts a year in the first six months, known as the first six, the student does not appear in court but observes cases and conducts research for other barristers under the supervision of a more senior barrister known as a pupil master. In the second six the student begins to appear in court on simple matter to begin with. Once pupillage is complete the pupil barrister will hope to obtain tenancy, which means they have a permanent place in the chambers.

I would prefer to become a solicitor working with families to help them overcome any difficult situations.

Week 5- Solicitors and Barristers

Solicitor definition- a member of the legal profession qualified to deal with conveyancing, the drawing up of wills, and other legal matters. A solicitor may also instruct barristers and represent clients in some courts.

Solicitors can advise their clients on a range of issues, including:
- personal issues: buying and selling residential property, landlord and tenant agreements, wills and probate, divorce and family matters, personal injury claims and criminal litigation.
- commercial work: helping new enterprises get established, advising complex corporate transactions (including mergers and acquisitions) and business-related disputes.
- protecting rights: making sure individuals receive compensations if unfairly treated by public and private bodies.

The typical duties of a solicitor includes:
- giving legal advice.
- researching cases and legislation.
- drafting legal documents.
- liaising with clients and other professionals such as barristers.
- representing clients in court.

A solicitor may also do advocacy work- a solicitor may appear in court on behalf of their client.

A solicitors job is to be responsible and trustworthy, necessitating integrity, confidentiality and a non-prejudicial manner.

How do I qualify to be a solicitor?
To become a solicitor, you must attend a (law or non-law) university, where you have a university degree. The degree is followed by a vocational, postgraduate course (otherwise known as the legal practice course- LPC). Graduates from any academic background can train as a solicitor, but should have an excellent record of academic achievement. Graduates with a non-law degree must pass a conversion course- the graduate diploma in law- GDL or common professional examination (CPE) before taking the LPC.
Following the required qualifications, it is necessary to complete a two year training contract.


Once qualified, solicitors can work in private practice, in house for commercial industrial organisations, in local or central government or in the court service.

Barrister definition- a person called to the bar and entitled to practice as an advocate, particularly in the higher courts.

The typical work duties of a barrister include:
- providing expert legal advice to solicitors and lay clients
- researching and preparing cases and writing legal documents.
- liaising with other legal professionals such as solicitors.
- representing clients and putting forward a case i their defense in
court.
- cross-examining witnesses, studying evidence and drawing
conclusions.
- negotiating settlements between the client and other parties.

The responsibilities of a barrister also includes:
- taking instruction from clients and their solicitors.
- understand and interpret law.
- master and manage legal briefs (cases).
- undertake legal research into relevant points of law.
- write opinions and advise solicitors and other professionals.
- prepare cases for courts, including holding client conferences and
preparing legal arguments.
- advise clients on matters of law and evidence and the strength of
their case.
- represent clients in court.
- present arguments in court.
- examine and cross-examine witnesses.
- sum up the reasons why the court should support your client's
case.
- draft legal documents.
- negotiate settlements.


How do I qualify to be a barrister?
Qualifying as a barrister consists of three stages: academic, vocational and professional (or pupillage).
You can only become a barrister if you have a degree, either in a law or non-law subject. If your degree is in another area, other than law, you must complete a law conversion course- the GDL or the CPE.
Both law and non-law graduates will need to take the one year Bar course; the Bar course prepares graduates for pupillage and lays the foundations for future practice. On completion,you will be 'called to the Bar' – the barrister's equivalent of graduation.
The last stage is the completion of pupillage. This consists of two six-month periods spent in chambers under the supervision of one or more ‘pupil supervisors’.
Once you have completed a pupillage, you will need to find a permanent base to practice- this is known as tenancy.

Overall, I would rather be a solicitor, than a barrister, due to the reason of which there is a lot of highly engaging work to be involved in. Solicitors are able to work internationally and the salaries are quite high.

Week 5- Barristers and Solicitors.

I would rather work as a Barrister. This is because they handle more challenging and bigger cases. I would want to handle cases like these as I think they would be more interesting and difficult. I would also rather be a Barrister as being a solicitor involves
Conveyancing and probate which heavily involves around property which I don’t find very intriguing.

I would want to find out who solicitors and Barristers work along side and how long the training for each occupation takes overall.

week 5- solicitors and barristers
The work of solicitors
Solicitors provide clients with legal advice and act on their behalf if necessary. They:
Advise clients on legal matters relating to their cases
Take instructions from clients
Draft the important legal documents and contracts for each case
Research previous cases and similar laws to provide accurate advice
Communicate with clients and opposing solicitors

Qualifications needed:
To become a solicitor you must either have a law degree, followed by the Legal Practice Course (LPC), complete a non-law degree then take the Common Professional Examination (CPE) or Graduate Diploma in Law (GDL) conversion course, followed by the LPC

The work of Barristers
Barristers provide legal advice to solicitors and other clients. If a court appearance is required, the individual will be referred to a barrister who will provide court representation. Their typical work duties include:
providing expert legal advice to solicitors and clients
researching and preparing cases and writing legal documents
representing clients and putting forward a case in their defence in court,

Qualifications needed:
To become a barrister, you must either take law at university, or a non-law subject and take the GDL (or law conversion course). The next step after this is completing the Bar Professional Training Course. This course is a one year full-time course that prepares you for life at the Bar through a range of core subjects and electives.

I would prefer to be a solicitor because you don't have to go to court. Also the working hours and workload for barristers is a lot more and quite stressful compared to the workload of solicitors.

Week 5- Solicitors and barristers

A solicitor is a type of lawyer and the first port of call when people ned legal advice. To be a solicitor you have to have a degree in law 3-year, full time or non-law degree followed by GDL/CPE, 1-year full time legal practise course, 1-year full time then a training contract for 2 years full time. They do lots of jobs including:

• Take detailed instructions and statements from clients
• Legal research
• Manage correspondence
• Liaising with experts and barristers
• Attending court if needed
• Conduct litigation and advocacy in court
• Drafting legal documents
• Lead client meetings
• Review documents
• Negotiate clauses/settlements
• Briefing counsel
• Business management
• Practise development

Solicitors can engage barristers if needed

A barrister is a type of lawyer in common law jurisdictions who work at higher levels in court, they mostly specialise in courtroom advocacy and litigation. To be a barrister you have to have a law degree, 3 years full time or a non-law degree followed by GDL/CPE, 1-year full time to become a member of an inn of court and complete qualifying sessions whilst undertaking the bar professional training coure,1 year time then pupillage, 1 year full time. Their tasks include:

• Cases in superior court and tribunal
• Drafting legal pleadings
• Researching the philosophy, hypothesis and history of law
• Giving expert legal opinions

The difference between solicitors and barristers is that barristers have more direct access to clients and barristers may do transactional-type legal work. Barristers spend more time in court and work in a higher level of court to solicitors

week 5 - solicitors and barristers

What does a barrister do?

-Barristers represent clients and solicitors in courts.
-Barristers translate their client’s case into a legal argument.
-They could work on criminal cases, where they could be defending or prosecuting in a Magistrates or Crown Court.
-they may also work in civil courts and employment or residential property tribunals.
-As well as arguing a case, they also advise clients and solicitors on the strength of the case.
-Most barristers are self-employed and work with other barristers in partnership in chambers, so they also need good administrative and numeracy skills.


What does a solicitor do?

Solicitors advise clients about different aspects of the law. They deal with property purchases, wills, divorces, or civil or criminal proceedings. The main 4 types are:

-private practice – providing legal services such as conveyancing, probate, civil and family law, litigation, personal injury and criminal law

-commercial practice – advising and acting for businesses in areas including contract law, tax, employment law and company sales and mergers

-in-house legal advice - for companies, the government or local authorities

-Crown Prosecution Service – examining evidence to decide whether to bring cases to court


What do I need to do to become a solicitor?

complete a qualifying law degree, followed by the Legal Practice Course (LPC)
complete a non-law degree then take the Common Professional Examination (CPE) or Graduate Diploma in Law (GDL) conversion course, followed by the LPC
complete the membership or fellowship route of the Chartered Institute of Legal Executives (CILEX) while working in the legal profession – this route can be taken if you do not have a degree

i would rather be a barrister than a solicitor because i like the idea of being able to verbally help and be in the courts.

WEEK 5 - Research the work of solicitors and barristers
In England and Wales to qualify as a solicitor under the current system you must either study a Qualifying Law Degree (LLB), before moving on to the Legal Practice Course (LPC), after with you will complete a two year period of recognised training (training contract). Solicitors act on behalf of and give legal advice to private and commercial clients. Once qualified, solicitors, ofter become specialised in one area such as family, litigation, property or tax. Solicitors woking in commercial law firm advise large corporate clients on transactions or cases. To become a barrister, you must first complete an academic stage of training, followed by a work-based (vocational) stage and the practical experience (called a pupillage). You can complete the academic stage by gaining: either an approved law degree - known as a qualifying law degree - at class 2:2 or above. Barristers are legal professionals who provide advocacy and legal advice to solicitors and other clients. If a court appearance is required, the individual will be referred to a barrister who will provide court representation and specialist counsel depending on the nature of the case. I would like to become a barrister as it it more general compared to solicitors who once qualified become more specific, however the requirement to become a barrister is high. Is studying law at university general learning, learning about all topics?

Week 5- Solicitors and barristers.
Solicitors do the pre-court work for a client whereas barristers do advocacy and represent the client in court. The solicitor is the barristers client. In England and Wales there are around 120,000 solicitors and 15,000 barristers. This is because not all cases actually go to court and in most cases barristers are not involved. Solicitors are always in contact with with client and work in firms within teams whereas barristers are often self-employed. To become a solicitor, after A-levels you need to complete your LLB (law degree) which takes 3 years to complete. After your LLB, it is required to do an LPC (Legal Practice Course) which takes 1 year to complete and finally you do a training contact in a law firm for 2 years. To become a barrister after you finish your LLB you have to do a BPTC for 1 year before moving onto a pupilage which also takes 1 year to complete. However from September 2021 in order to become a solicitor, you will have to do a SQE test(s) (Solicitors Qualifying Exam) instead of a LPC. Even though law is a very competitive area with approximately 42 applications per training contract vacancy, I would like to become a solicitor as I think I would prefer working in a law firm within a team rather than being self employed.

Week 4- Is sentencing fair in the UK?

I think that sentencing is fair in the UK because there are different types of sentencing for different crimes and this makes it fair because each crime has different punishments which means not all crimes are looked at the same and there are options to what sentences there are for example the judge is given 4 options: Custodial sentences, community sentences and lastly fines and discharges. This ensures each crime is given the the appropriate punishment, because there are many guidelines and rules in order to decide the sentence and the Judge has to take into consideration details of the case. Overall, I believe sentencing is fair in the UK as not all crimes small or big are looked at the same or all given the same punishment, there are certain things that are taken into consideration before sentencing. For example if someone commits a murder they will not be charged with a fine like someone who has parked in the wrong area however they will receive a harsher sentence which I think is fair.

Week 5 - Solicitors and Barristers

A solicitor is a legal practitioner who’s responsibility is to prepare legal documents in the run up and during a court case. They perform the majority of their work outside of court, in a law firm or office setting, however, solicitors can also obtain ‘rights of audience’ which allows them to represent clients in court.
Their work can include:
-Drawing up legal documents e.g. wills
-Preparing a case for trial (litigation)
-Contacting clients

There are 3 levels of training to become a solicitor. After completing a Law degree or a non- law degree and then a law conversion course such as the GDL, you must then complete a vocational 1-2 year course called the Legal Practice Course (LPC), which tests your skills and prepares you for solicitor practice. Following this, you must then complete a 2 year training contract, which is legal work experience which usually takes place in a law firm.

A barrister is a legal professional who offers specialist advice whilst representing and defending clients during court or at a tribunal.

There are also 3 levels of training to become a barrister. After completing a Law degree or equivalent, you need to complete the Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC). Followed by a 1 year pupillage, which involves shadowing a barrister, before starting work in the chambers.

I think that I would prefer to be a solicitor as they are employed by a law firm whereas barristers tend to be self employed, meaning that there is more job security working as a solicitor.

Week 5: Solicitors and Barristers

SOLICITORS:
A Solicitors job usually involves dealing with property purchases, wills, divorces, or civil or criminal proceedings. They have many responsibilities such as:
• Advising clients on legal matters relevant to their cases
• Taking instructions from clients
• Drafting the necessary legal documents and contracts for each case
• Researching previous cases and relevant laws so as to provide accurate advice
• Once an agreement has been reached, ensure that it is implemented
• Communicate with clients and opposing solicitors
• If necessary, represent clients in court
• Instruct barristers on cases that reach court
• Supervise trainee solicitors and paralegals

QUALIFICATIONS NEEDED:
It usually takes at least six years to qualify as a solicitor if you study law full time. However, it will take longer if you study a different subject for your degree and decide later you want to follow a legal career. After the law degree, you must complete the Legal Practice Course (LPC). The LPC helps you develop your practical skills and legal knowledge. It can be taken full time for one year, or part-time for two years. Once you have completed the LPC, you will begin your period of recognised training, which is the final step towards qualifying. This will usually last for two years. If you have a non-law degree, you must complete the Graduate Diploma in Law. It can be taken full-time for one year, or part-time for two years.

BARRISTERS:

Types of Barristers:
• chancery law (estates and trusts)
• commercial law
• common law (includes family, housing and personal injury law)
• criminal law
• entertainment law
• environmental law
• sports law.

A Barristers job usually involves responsibilities such as:
• Working with and advising clients and solicitors
• Working on criminal cases, where you could be defending or prosecuting in a Magistrates or Crown Court
• Translate their client’s case into a legal argument
• Legal research
• Drafting legal documents
• Preparing cases for court
• Representing clients in court
• Negotiating settlements out of court
• Working with witness statements and cross-examining witnesses


QUALIFICATIONS NEEDED:
To become a barrister, you must first complete an academic stage of training, followed by a work-based (vocational) stage and practical experience (called a pupillage).
You can complete the academic stage by gaining: either an approved law degree – known as a qualifying law degree – at class 2:2 or above or a degree at 2:2 or above in any other subject, followed by a postgraduate Common Professional Examination (CPE) or Graduate Diploma in Law (GDL)

I would prefer to work as a solicitor because I would have job security more so than a barrister as I would be working in a law firm, whereas most barristers seem to be self-employed.

Week 5 - Solicitors and Barristers
A barrister is someone who offers specialist advice and represents its clients in court. They can work in The Crown Court, High Court, Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court. Many typically specialize in one area of law (for example criminal law). To become a barrister you need a law degree with at least a 2:2 (Hons) minimum or a non-law degree (2:2 minimum) and a law conversion course (for example GDL -Graduate Diploma in Law); you must also sit the Bar Course Aptitude Test (BCAT).

A solicitor is responsible for preparing legal documents up to a during the court case. To become a solicitor you also need a law degree or non-law degree (both 2:2 minimum) with a law conversion course. You then have to complete the Legal Practice Course (LPC) which puts the knowledge you learn at university into practice. After this, you must complete a period of recognise training (2 years), and then you can become a solicitor.

Personally, I do not think that I want to be a solicitor or barrister. I am more inclined towards becoming a paralegal. This is because there is less training required and they are more involved in the research aspect of the case rather than representing the client in court.

week 5- solicitors and barristers

Personally, I would rather be a barrister as I prefer working independently and I feel as though there is a lot of pressure to make decisions quickly and on the spot as a solicitor which could lead to consequences as ideas are not thought through throughouly in private.

Carlill Vs Carbolic smoke ball Co.
An advert was published by the Carbolic Smoke Ball company. This consisted of a statement stating that if anybody contracts a disease or a cold after using the smoke ball as they direct they will give an £100 reward. Mrs. Carlisle bought the product and used it how they directed. She then contracted Influenza. This led her to file to recover the £100 from the company. The Carbolic Smoke company appealed but it was dismissed as the advertisement conditions created a valid contract.
The defendants had to lay the £100 they mentioned in the advert. I do agree with this outcome as if a reward is stated in an advert, if Somebody completes the directions listed the company should expect the pay the money. If the company was not serious or unwilling to pay the reward they shouldn’t use the reward in an advertisement.

Donoghue Vs Stevenson
In Scotland 1928 Mae Donoghue and her friend went into a cafe and she ordered a ginger beer float. Half the beverage was poured into the float and the remaining was left on the table. She then found remains of a snail in her drink and said it made her feel ill with gastroenteritis. She bought a claim to the manufacture of the ginger beer. Mr. Stevenson and claimed he should pay compensation due to her illness. Stevenson argued that he wasn’t liable for her illness as there was no contract between them.
This led to the duty of care in tort of negligence.
I do agree with the outcome. I believe if a company releases a product without the intent of making their consumers ill and it does so they are liable.

Week 5 - Solicitors and Barristers
To qualify as a solicitor, you must first complete a qualifying law degree at university and follow that with an LPC (Legal Practice Course). Or, you could complete a non- law degree then take the CPE (Common Professional Examination) or Graduate Diploma in Law conversion course and then followed by the LPC.
To qualify as a barrister, you must go through three stages of training. First, complete a qualifying law degree followed by the GDL. Then, complete the Bar Professional Training Course. Finally followed by a year of practical training under the watch of an experienced barrister.
I think I would prefer to be a barrister because I think I could be quite good at negotiating settlements and presenting arguments in court. I think I could be good at advising other professionals and examine witnesses.

Week 5- Solicitors and Barristers

To become a solicitor it is required to study/train for at least six years full time. In that time you need to complete a qualifying law degree, followed by a Legal Practice Course (LPC). You also need to have a non-law degree, then take the Common Professional Examination (CPE) or Graduate Diploma in Law (GDL) conversion course. In addition, you need to have two years of recognised training.
To become a barrister it is necessary to have at least 5 years of study/training. Three of those years for the Bar Professional Training Course (BPTC) and one year for pupillage in chambers. (You'll do one more year if your GDL isn't in law.)
The difference between the two is that a barrister's work mainly is mainly defending people in court while a solicitor performs legal work outside of court.

What does a solicitor do?:
-Give legal advice to private and commercial clients
-They specialise in one legal field, such as, family, litigation, property or tax
-If they work in commercial law firms, they can advise large corporate clients on transactions or cases
-Researching cases and legislation
-Drafting legal documents
-Representing clients in court

What does a barrister do?:
-Provide advocacy and legal advice to solicitors and other clients
-Researching and preparing cases and writing legal documents
-Representing clients and putting forward a case in their defence in court
-Cross-examining witnesses, studying evidence and drawing conclusions
-Negotiating settlements between the client and other parties.

I would want to be a barrister because they are more involved in cases and get to spend more time in the courtroom. They have more responsibility then solicitors. They get to spend more time in the courtroom which is exciting for me and makes me more inclined towards being a barrister.

Week 6- Carlisle v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company and Donoghue v Stevenson

Carlisle v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company-
On the 13th of November 1891, an ad was sent out by the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company. It said that they would pay £100 if anyone got influenza or any other cold and using the smoke ball and directed. Mrs. Carlisle saw the ad and bought the ball and did as instructed and still got influenza. She went to court to get her £100 and they gave judgment in her favour. The company appealed to the court but their request was dismissed.

Donoghue v Stevenson-
On the 26th of August 1928, Mary Donoghue went to a cafe in Paisley, Scotland with a friend. Her friend ordered a mix of ice cream and ginger beer. The owner came and poured the ginger beer from a "brown opaque bottle" labeled D. Stevenson Glen Lane Paisley. Donoghue ate some and her friend poured more and a decomposed snail also came out. Donoghue said she felt ill and had abdominal pain, and she was then diagnosed with severe gastroenteritis and shock. the case establishes 3 major legal principles: 1. there was no contractual agreement because Donoghue did not purchase it from Stevenson. 2. Stevenson has a duty of care to the final consumer. 3. "Thou shall love thy neighbour", which in law becomes "Thou shall not 'injure' thy neighbour".

Carlisle v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company

On the 13th of November 1891 an advert was published by the carbolic smoke ball company, the advert said that a £100 reward will be paid by the company to any person, if they contracted a disease or cold after having used the ball three times daily for two weeks. Mrs. Carlisle went to the chemist and bought the product and used it exactly how they directed however she contracted influenza so she filed action to claim the £100, the trial judge gave judgment to Mrs. Carlisle. The company appealed to the court of appeal and the appeal was dismissed as the advertisement conditions created a valid contract. The defendant had to give the £100 to Mrs. Carlisle.
I agree with the decision made as Mrs. Carlisle followed the instructions exactly on the smoke ball and the company shouldn’t have made the promise if they didn’t want to pay the reward.


Donoghue Vs. Stevenson
On 26th of August 1928 Ms. Mary Donoghue went to a café with her friend in Scotland they ordered a ginger beer float. The owner of the café brought over the float and poured half of the ginger bear onto the ice cream. The ginger beer bottle was brown and opaque and labeled D.Stevenson Glen Lane Paisley. Donoghues friend poured the remaining ginger onto the float and a decomposed snail also came out of the bottle. Donoghue claimed that she felt ill from the sight, complaining of abdominal pain, she received emergency treatment and was diagnosed with severe gastroenteritis and shock. She bought a claim of the manufacture of the beer and Mr. Stevenson payed compensation due to her illness but argued that he wasn’t liable for her illness as there was no contract between them.
This case establishes three major legal principles, which are:
• Negligence is tort- the defendant has not purchase the ginger therefore se could not establish ant contractual agreement with the ginger beer manufacturer
• Duty of care- the manufacturer has a duty of care to the final consumer
• Neighbor principle- the rule that you must not injure your ‘neighbor’
I do agree with the outcome of this case as the company didn’t have the intention to make a consumer ill and they did therefore I think they are liable.

Week 6- Civil Cases
Carlisle v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company:
On the 13th of November, an advertisement was realised on how to treat influenza, by the Smoke Ball Company. It stated that if the treatment didn't work, you would receive £100. Ms Carlisle tried the treatment, and ended up getting influenza, and then took the company to court. She received her £100 as stated in the ad, and the company put in an appeal, which was ignored.

Donoghue v Stevenson:
On the 26th Of August 1928, 2 friends went to a Cafe and ordered desert. Once pouring a liquid onto their desert, a decomposed snail fell onto the food. After this, Donghue fell ill and had trouble eating for the next few days. This case showcased 3 legal principles, negligence is a tort, duty of care and neighbour principle .

Week 5- Solicitors and Barristers
I think I would prefer to work as a barrister because it would be rewarding to know that you were able to provide specialist knowledge that helps a client obtain their desired outcome which is likely to improve their life. Responsibilities would include advising clients, prepare cases for court, undertaking legal research and examine and cross-examine witnesses.

Week 6 - Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company and Donoghue v Stevenson

Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company
On November 13th 1891, the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company published an advert stating that a £100 reward will be paid by the company to any person who contracts the increasing epidemic influenza colds, or any disease caused by taking cold, after having used the ball three times daily for two weeks, according to the printed directions supplied with each ball.
Mrs Louisa Elizabeth Carlill saw the advertisement and bought one of the balls. She proceeded to use it 3 times daily for nearly 2 months until she contracted the flu on January 17th 1892. She then claimed £100 from the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company, however, they ignored her first 2 letters from her husband (a solicitor). On a third request for her reward, they replied with an an anonymous letter that if it is used properly the company had complete confidence in the smoke ball's efficacy, but "to protect themselves against all fraudulent claims", they would need her to come to their office to use the ball each day and be checked by the secretary. Mrs. Carlill brought a claim to court. The barristers representing her argued that the advertisement and her reliance on it was a contract between the company and her, so the company ought to pay. The company argued it was not a serious contract. The Court of Appeal unanimously rejected the company's arguments and held that there was a fully binding contract for £100 with Mrs. Carlill.
I agree with the judgement as Mrs Carlill did exactly what was advertised and so the company shouldn't have said they would pay £100 if they didn't want to.

Donoghue v Stevenson
Also known as the "Paisley snail" or "snail in the bottle" case, the case involved Mrs Donoghue drinking a bottle of ginger beer in a café in Paisley, Renfrewshire. A dead snail was in the bottle. She fell ill, and according to her later statements of facts, she was required to consult a doctor on 29 August and was admitted to Glasgow Royal Infirmary for "emergency treatment" on 16 September. She was subsequently diagnosed with severe gastroenteritis and shock. She then sued the ginger beer manufacturer, Mr Stevenson. The House of Lords held that the manufacturer owed a duty of care to her, which was breached, because it was reasonably foreseeable that failure to ensure the product's safety would lead to harm to consumers.
However, Donoghue was not the one who purchased the ginger beer, and so, on 12 December, Minghella and Stevenson were awarded a combined costs claim of £108 against Donoghue for this abandoned strand of litigation. However, it was recorded on 20 December that Donoghue did not pay the costs awarded to Minghella.
I agree with the judgement of this case as the manufacturer didn't have the intention to make the costumer ill, however they did. Hence, I think they are liable to the consequences.

Week 6 - Carlill vs Carbolic Smoke Ball Company and Donoghue vs Stevenson

Carlill vs Carbolic Smoke Ball Company

On the 13th of November 1891, Carbolic advertised that they would give £100 to anyone who got ill after using their product three times a day for two weeks. Mrs Carlill got influenza after using the product - she filed an action to get the £100. Carbolic appealed to the court of appeal, however, this was dismissed saying that Mrs Carlill was owed £100 by Carbolic Smoke Company as their advertisement had acted as a contract between the company and Mrs Carlill.

Donoghue vs Stevenson

It was in the summer of 1928 in Scotland. Mae Donoghue got ill from having a ginger ale that contained remains of a snail. She claimed Mr Stevenson (the owner of the ginger ale company) should be made to pay her compensation for causing the illness. Stevenson claimed he was not liable as there was no contract. The House of Lords created the 'Neighbour Principle' wherein the eyes of the law 'love your neighbour' became 'you must not injure your neighbour'. Therefore Donaghue had a right to expect that Stevenson should ensure the beer would not make her ill. Therefore he was made to pay compensation. This 'Neighbour Principle' is still present in our legal system today.

In conclusion, I think that the outcomes in both cases were fair and justified, as I believe the producers of products should have a duty to care for their customers and ensure their health and wellbeing.

WEEK 6 - Civil Cases:
Carlisle V Carbolic Smoke Ball Company: On the 13th of November 1891, there was an advertisement that showcased how to treat influenza, by the Smoke Ball Company. There was a statement made that if anyone fell ill after using the treatment three times a day for two weeks, would receive £100 as compensation. The company was shortly taken to court by Mrs Carlill, Mrs Carlill was a patient who tested the product and ended up developing influenza. As a result of this she filled an action to receive £100 but Carbolic Smoke Company. The company appealed to the court of appeal, however this was dismissed due to the statement they made in their advertisement, which had acted as a contract between the company and Mrs Carlill.

Donoghue V Stevenson: on the 26th august 1928, after two friends attended a cafe, Mae Donoghue fell ill from consuming a ginger ale that contained remains of a snail. She claimed that Mr Stevenson, the one of the ginger ale company, should be made to pay her compensation for causing her to fall ill. However, Mr Stevenson claimed he was liable as there was no contract. The House of Lords created the ‘Neighbour Principle’ where n the eyes of the law ‘love your neighbour’ became ‘you must not injure your neighbour’. As a result of this Donoghue had a right to expect Stevenson to ensure the beer would not make her ill. Therefore he had to pay her compensation. This ‘Neighbour Principle’ is still present in our legal system today.

In conclusion, I think that the results of these cases were justified because in my option I believe the manufactures of products should a duty of care towards their customers and ensure their safety and wellbeing.

Week 6- Civil cases

Carlill vs Carbolic Smoke Ball Company
On the 13th November 1891, the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company advertised a smoke ball, promising that those who bought the product would be immune from a range of illnesses, including influenza. They also stated anyone who bought the product, followed the instructions as directed and still contracted influenza would receive £100. Mrs Carlill had contracted influenza, though trying the treatment exactly as directed. She successfully sued the company for £100, though the company raised many arguments. The company placed an appeal, though it was dismissed as the statement in their advertisement acted as a contract between the company and the consumer. The court had enforced paying the £100. The company had lodged £1000 in the bank for this very purpose.

Donoghue vs Stevenson
In the summer of 1928, in Scotland, Mae Donoghue became ill due to have ginger ale, containing the corpse of a snail. Donoghue alleged she became ill with gastroenteritis and claimed the owner of the ginger ale company- Mr Stevenson, should be forced to pay her compensation. Mr Stevenson claimed he was not liable as there was no contract between the two. The House of Lords introduced the 'neighbor principle' where the 'love thy neighbor' became 'you must not injure your neighbor'. The case showed that manufacturers have: a duty in care, negligence is a tort and the neighbor principle.

Week 6: Carvill v Carbolic Smoke Company and Donoghue vs Stevenson

A medical firm company advertised a 'new wonder' drug that claimed to cure or prevent people from contracting the flu. The drug consisted of a smoke ball filled with carbolic acid which was instructed to be taken three times a day for two weeks to stop the contraction of Influenza. If the person still wasn't cured or still contracted the virus, then they could get their money back as well as a £100 for the compensation of the person. One lady called Louisa Carvill brought the drug and used, as instructed, three times a day for three months and yet suffered an attack from the virus. Rightfully, her husband contacted the company and requested they were given the £100 in compensation. In response, the medical firm denied the request and instead insisted that the advertisement wasn't to be taken seriously and wasn't a legally binding offer. The woman took this to court and after a long time, the final decision concluded that the company would be forced to pay the £100 to anyone who had contracted the virus even after using their instructions due to the fact it was seen as a legal offer and was put out all over the world. In my opinion, I think the company go the right outcome as they did put out the advertisement which was there to be taken seriously.

Donoghue vs Stevenson
A woman purchased a bottle of ginger beer which was an opaque bottle, meaning the contents couldn't be seen from the outside. After consuming half the bottle, the lady realized that there was a dead snail in the bottle. She later contracted shock and severe gastroenteritis from the incident. Due to the fact, she was ill and didn't believe it was her fault she wanted some sort of compensation for her misfortune however there were discrepancies on whether it was the shop owner or the manufacturer's fault. The case was agreed over the concept 'duty of care'. This means that although the ginger beer was brought from the shop owner, and not the manufacture directly, they still had a 'duty of care' to the customer which makes sure they get what they wanted for their purchase. The final outcome, was really confusing, however, from what I understand, the company was suggested to make the bottles see-through and a bigger duty of care was to be upheld. I agree with this as it will prevent future mistakes from being made.

Week 6- Civil Cases
Carlill vs Carbolic Smoke Ball company
On the 13th November 1891 the Carbolic Smoke Ball Company published an advertisement for the Pall Mall Gazette. The advertisement was for a smoke ball and it claimed to cure influenza or a common cold. The Carbolic Smoke Ball company was offering £100 to anyone who used this 3 times daily for 2 weeks and still had a cold/flu after that duration. Mrs Carlil used the smoke ball however her cold did not go away so she wanted her £100. The Carbolic Smoke Ball company refused to give her the money as they said that the advertisement wasn't to be taken seriously. Therefore she filed action against them and took the case to court. The Carbolic Smoke Ball company tried to appeal but it was dismissed as the court decided that their statement in the advertisement acted as a contract between the company and consumer. Mrs Carlil then received the £100.
I agree with this outcome because Mrs Carlil was within her rights and the advertisement was proof of that. Also, in my opinion it's wrong for the company to go back on their words after stating the information about the £100 cash prize in their advertisement.

Donoghue vs Stevenson
In Scotland 1928, May Donoghue and a friend went into a cafe and May Donoghue brought a bottle of ginger ale. She however realised that there were snails in the drink and later fell sick with gastroenteritis. Mrs Donoghue filed a claim against the manufacturer of the ginger ale :Stevenson, and this claim was taken to court. She wanted Stevenson to pay compensation. Stevenson said that he wasn't liable as there was no contract between them however the court disagreed with him and said that he had to pay because he has a responsibility to make sure that his products contain nothing which could potentially harm the products consumers. This came under the neighbour principle: the quote "love your neighbour" became "you must not injure your neighbour" under the law and this case was a big step into the concept of "Duty of care" being changed. This is because beforehand, this concept only applied to cases where a contract was involved.
I agree with this outcome as it is a manufacturers responsibility to make sure that their products are safe and healthy to consume with no possibility of a negative impact on their consumers health.

Week 6: Civil Cases

Carllil vs. Carbolic Smoke Ball

On the 13th November 1891, Carbolic Smoke Ball Company posted an advertisement about their product suggesting that “£100 reward will be paid by Carbolic Smoke Ball Company to any person who contracts the increasing epidemic influenza, colds or any diseases caused by taking the product after having used the ball; three times daily for two weeks, according to the printed directions supplied with each Ball.” After having seen this advertisement, the plaintiff, Mrs Carllil, went to the chemist and bought one of the smoke balls. However, she contracted influenza even though she used product by following the directions. Therefore, she filed action to recover £100. The trial judge gave judgement to Mrs Carllil. Carbolic Smoke Ball company did not agree with this so appealed to the Court of Appeal; however, it was dismissed.
I do agree with this outcome because prior to this case, the company already set aside £1000 which meant that this was evidence of taking their promise seriously. The plaintiff used the product by following the instructions and the advertisement produced by the company created a valid contract on part of the defendant to pay £100.

Donoghue vs. Stevenson

On the 26th August 1928, in Scotland, Ms Mary Donoghue and her friend visited a café and ordered a Scotsman Ice Cream Float (mix of ice cream and ginger beer), served by the owner. After drinking some of the ice cream float, her friend poured the remaining ginger beer into the ice cream and a decomposed snail came out of the bottle. Ms Donoghue claimed that she felt ill from the sight and complained of abdominal pain. She received emergency treatment and was diagnosed with severe gastroenteritis and shock. Ms Donoghue made a claim towards the manufacturer of the beer Mr Stevenson, wanting compensation. However, he argued that he was not liable as there was no contract.
There were three major legal principles in this case:
-Negligence is a tort: the defendant did not purchase the ginger beer so she could not establish any contractual agreement with Mr Stevenson.
-Duty of Care: the manufacturer had a duty of care towards the final consumer
-Neighbour Principle: (created by the House of Lords) you must “love thy neighbour” became you must not “injure” your neighbour.
In conclusion, I think the outcome of this case was fair as the manufacturers have a duty to ensure their products are safe to consume.

Week 6 – Civil Cases

Carlill V Carbolic Smoke Ball Company
On the 13th November 1891, The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company published an advertisement which offered a £100 reward to anyone who fell ill to Influenza, colds or any disease after having used the Ball, 3 times daily for 2 weeks. Mrs Carlill purchased one of the smoke balls and shortly after contracted Influenza. The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company refused to pay Mrs Carlill the £100 that she was promised, so she filed action to recover it. The trial judge gave judgement in her favour - awarding her the £100. The Carbolic Smoke Ball Company appealed to the Court of Appeal, but it was dismissed. I agree with the outcome because the Smoke Ball Company shouldn’t have advertised the reward if they weren’t willing to follow through with it.

Donoghue V Stevenson
On the 26th August 1928 Donoghue and her friend visited a Café in Scotland where she ordered a ginger beer float. A snail was found in the bottle of ginger beer and Mrs Donoghue claimed that she felt ill from the sight and began to complain of abdominal pain. After receiving emergency treatment, she was diagnosed with gastroenteritis and shock. Mrs Donoghue claimed that Mr Stevenson should be made to pay compensation due to her falling ill. However, he argued that he wasn’t liable as there was no contract between them. This case established 3 main principles; negligence is a tort, duty of care and the neighbour principle. I think this case was judged fairly because the manufacturer should take responsibility if their product doesn’t conform to the health and safety standards and isn’t what the consumer expected.

Week 6- Carill v Carbolic smoke ball company
Carbolic company advertised a smoke ball as medicine and said that if you buy it you will be immune from illnesses like the flu. They said that if you purchased the ball and still got the flu, they would give the consumer £100 back. Mrs Carlill did get the flu and sued the company for the £100. The company argued that their advert wasn’t to be taken seriously and that they never said they would give a specific person the money. The judge stated that it was a uniliteral offer which means performance and acceptance are the same and therefore enforced the claim for £100. Judges said that if the company put £1000 in the bank to use it anyone got the flue that the advertisement was to be taken seriously.
Donoghue v Stevenson- Mrs Donoghue went to a café with a friend and ordered ginger beer, half was poured into her ice cream and the rest was left on the table. Turns out there was snail bits in the beer then she then fell sick with gastroenteritis and sued the maker of the ginger beer, David Stevenson. Mrs Donoghue claimed Mr Stevenson should pay compensation as her illness was caused by the snail bits in the beer. Mr Stevenson argued that he wasn’t liable as there wasn’t a contract between them, so the case was brought to court. Mr Stevenson was very confident he would win the case as he didn’t have a contract with Mrs Donoghue, unlikely for him the house of lords decided to unshackle the duty of care concept. Mrs Donoghue won the case and this case is still referenced in today's courts as a manufacturer should make sure their products are safe.
I agree with both of the outcomes because they can't fake advertisements and they can't make a person ill and not expect repercussions

Week 7
Sander v Uk:
- https://simplestudying.com/sander-v-uk-2001/
- the prosecution of an Asian man being charged with conspiracy to defraud
- certain fellow juros made racist remarks and jokes
- all had to sign a letter, promising that they would reach a verdict based only upon the evidence

R v Mirza:
- https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1350/ijep.8.3.186.40868
- appellants were convicted following a majority verdict
- the defendant in Mirza was a Pakistani man who had faced racial bias

R v Fraser
- https://canliiconnects.org/en/summaries/39040
- the appellant (a schoolteacher) appealed his conviction for sexually touching a student
- was never told that he could challenge potential juros (on the basis he was African American)
- the juros could've discriminated against him

The similarity between all these cases is that there was some form of racial bias, which could have affected the outcome of the case.

Week 7 - Research

R v Mirza - https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1350/ijep.8.3.186.40868
In this case, the appellant was convicted following a majority verdict. A member of the jury sent a letter to the defense council alleging the impropriety on the part of the jury. The defendant was a Pakistani man, who used an interpreter at the trial. The letter sent by the juror suggested a failure to follow this direction (the jury believing that the use of the interpreter to be a 'devious ploy') and racial bias.

R v Fraser - http://canliiconnects.org/en/summaries/39040
The appellant appealed his convictions for touching a former student sexually. The major concern was that he was African-Canadian, and so, the jurors could discriminate against him. To comfort him, his lawyer told him that he had "got a lot of black guys off with all white juries".

Sander v UK - https://swarb.co.uk/sander-v-the-united-kingdom-echr-9-may-2000/
This case was about an Asian defendant that was charged with conspiracy to defraud. A juror complained that other jurors had made racist jokes, and feared that the defendant wouldn't get a fair trial. The acquittal of an Asian co-defendant also made no difference since the case against him was different.

All of these cases have some form of racial bias within them. These cases appear to have been chosen in light of the recent riots that have been occuring around the world.

Week 7
LEGAL CASES
R V MIRZA- https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1350/ijep.8.3.186.40868
The appellants were convicted following a majority verdict. After the trail a member of the jury sent a letter to defence counsel (mirza) and the trial judge alleging offense on the part of the jury. Mirza was a Pakistani man who had lived in London for 13 years; he used an interpreter at the trail. The letter sent by the junior implied a failure to follow this direction (the jury believed that using an interpreter was devious ploy) and racial bias. The defendants were convicted following a joint rail. The letter suggested that the jury had failed to consider the evidence properly and had convicted both defendants when they were uncertain which was guilty.

R V FRAZER 1987- https://canliiconnects.org/en/summaries/39040
The appellant was a schoolteacher and appealed his conviction for sexually touching a former student. A major concern was that his trial lawyer never told him he could challenge jurors for cause on the basis that he was African Canadian and that the jurors might discriminate against him. Instead the lawyer told him “got a lot of black guys off with all white juries”. The appellant raised concerns about race and discrimination several times both before the jury selection and during.

SANDER V UK-https://simplestudying.com/sander-v-uk-2001/
This case was about the prosecution of an Asian man on a charge of conspiracy of defraud. During the trial a jury passed a note to the judge alleging that certain of his fellow jurors made racist comments and joke. The judge asked the jury to decide the case on the evidence rather than any prejudice. The jurors all agreed to this by a signing a letter that they would only reach a verdict according to evidence without a racial bias.
All these cases have a form of racial behaviour in them, these cases have been chosen as in the world there have been protests and riots about racism.

Week 6- Donoghue vs Stevenson and Carlill vs Carbolic smoke ball company.

Donoghue vs Stevenson

The Donoghue vs Stevenson case first started in Scotland in the summer of 1928 when Mae Donoghue got sick after having having ginger ale that contained remains of a snail in a restaurant whilst with her friend. She claimed Mr Stevenson who was the owner of the ginger ale company, should be made to pay compensation for causing her to become ill. However Mr. Stevenson claimed that he was not liable on the grounds that there was no contract. As a result of this case The House of Lords created ended up creating the 'Neighbour Principle' which changed the phrase 'love your neighbour' to 'you must not injure your neighbour’ in the eyes of law. Therefore Donaghue had a right to expect that Stevenson should ensure the beer would not make her ill. Therefore he was made to pay compensation. This 'Neighbour Principle' is still present in our legal system today.

Carlill vs Carbolic Smoke Ball Company

On November 13th 1891, a company called Carbolic released an advertisement that stated they would give £100 to anyone who got ill after using their product according to the institutions given with the product (three times a day for two weeks.) Mrs Carlill got influenza after using the advertised product and therefore she filed a law suit to get the £100 which was promised by the company. Carbolic appealed to the court of appeal on the basis that there was never and actual contact in place however the appeal was dismissed saying that Mrs Carlill was owed £100 by Carbolic Smoke Company as the advertisement that they had published acted as a contract between the company and anyone who brought the product after the advertisement was released.

Week 7- Researching Legal Cases

R V. Mirza: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1350/ijep.8.3.186.40868

-The appellant was a Pakistani man, convicted following majority verdict.
- After the trial, a juror sent a letter to the defence counsel, alleging impropriety on behalf of the jury.
-The defendant faced racial bias and was convicted when they were uncertain if he was guilty or not.

R V. Fraser: https://canliiconnects.org/en/summaries/39040

-The appellant was a schoolteacher who was accused of sexually touching a former student.
-The compliant was caucasian and the defendant was African Canadian.
-His lawyer didn't tell him that he could challenge the jury for being racially biased and instead told him that he "got a lot of black guys off with all white juries".

Sander V. UK: https://swarb.co.uk/sander-v-the-united-kingdom-echr-9-may-2000/

-In the trial of an Asian defendant, a juror complained that the rest of the jury was make racist comments and jokes.
-The juror feared that the defendant would not have received a fair trial if it continued
-In the end the juror was right and the trial was defective.

What all these cases have in common is that there was racial bias in all of them and they were chosen in light of the reason protests and riots happening all of the world because of the unjustifiable death of George Floyd.

Week 7- Research

R v Mirza - https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1350/ijep.8.3.186.40868
In this case, a Pakistani man was convicted due to a majority verdict however after the verdict, a member of the jury sent a letter to the judge and defensive council, alleging impropriety on behalf of the jury. This was due to the fact the defendant had used a translator during his trial as English was not his first language. This was dismissed as it failed to show direction and didn't give evidence to the claim (the defendant had used a translator as a devious ploy).

R v Frazer 1987 - https://canliiconnects.org/en/summaries/39040
The case was about a schoolteacher of whom had been accused of sexually touching a former student. The defendant was never told by his lawyer that he could challenge the juniors due to the fact he was an African Canadian and the student was Caucasian. The defendant raised his concerns over rase and discrimination at all points during active court however the lawyer of the defendant failed to challenge which went against even the basic of constitutional rights.

Sander v UK - https://simplestudying.com/sander-v-uk-2001/
The case came to major concern during the trial of an Asian man, who was in charge of suspicion of conspiracy to defraud. During the trial, one of the jurors passed the judge a note which stated some of the other juries had been making racist remarks and jokes towards the defendant. The judge then asked the jury to make their decision not based on rase but evidence as a whole. Everyone signed this.

All these cases deal with racial discrimination of some sort and during these current times, I think this is why we have been asked to look at these cases. For when dealing with matters of the law, it can be especially detrimental to a case when the race of someone is brought in and used to 'help' the opposing side as usually it is completely wrong and has no correlation with the case at all.

Week 7

Research the following legal cases:

R v Mirza
Site used: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1350/ijep.8.3.186.40868

Research conducted:
In this case, the defendant in Mirza was a Pakistani man, who resided in the UK for 13 years. An interpreter was used at the trial, where following queries from the jury, the judge ruled that there was to be no influence drawn from this. After the trial, a letter sent by the juror accused the jury of racial bias. The letter suggested that the jury had not considered all evidence properly, where the defendant was convicted with the possibility that conviction could have been avoided.


R V Frazer 1987
Site used:https://canliiconnects.org/en/summaries/39040

Research conducted:
The appellant, whose occupation was a school teacher, was convicted for sexually touching a former student. The school teacher appealed his conviction, though there was a complication in the case- the school teacher was African Canadian. This potentially might mean the jury may discriminate against him due to his skin colour. In continuation, his lawyer told the appellant that he had "got a lot of black guys off with all white juries". The appellant raised concerns regarding race and discrimination, both before and during the jury election. The lawyer failed the appellant, as he failed to state that the appellant had a statutory right to challenge for cause and by not explaining the process or its objectives.


Sander V UK
Site used: https://simplestudying.com/sander-v-uk-2001/

Research conducted: An Asian man was prosecuted on a charge of conspiracy to defraud. During the trial, a member of the jury passed a note to the judge alleging that other members of the jury made both racist remarks and jokes. This resulted in the judge asking the jury to pass a conviction based on evidence, rather than prejudice. The jury members agreed to this y signing a letter that they would reach a verdict according to evidence, excluding any racial bias.


The similarity between these cases is that there were forms of racial bias, where they could have impacted other lives significantly and changed the outcomes. I believe we were told to research these three cases, in the light of the events occurring at this time period- the riots, peaceful protests revolving around the intentional and unforgivable murder of George Floyd.

R V Mirza-
Unpaid work requirement of 200 hrs was too excessive given the offenders circumstances. The offender had failed to fully comply with an enforcement notice and had not rectified significant findings in a risk assessment. The Court of Appeal decided that the judge had not erred in imposing a custodial sentence. The sentence was not wrong but the unpaid work of 200hrs was too excessive as the offender had financial difficulties and he would take him a long time and work to pay the £2000.
( firesafetylaw.co.uk )

R V Frazer 1987-
The defendant was a teacher who appealed conviction to sexually touching a former student. The trial lawyer never informed the defendant that he could challenge the jury for cause on the basis he was African Canadian and the all white jury could discriminate against him. The lawyer failed to advise the right to challenge for cause.
(canliconnects.org)

Sander v UK-
During a trial of a defendant who was Asian, a Juror complained that other Jurors had made racist jokes therefore the defendant would not receive a fair trial. The defendant could not be expected to accept that his trial was fair. However, the decision made whether he was guilty or not made no difference as the case against him was different.
( swarb.co.uk )

All the cases are similar as defendants were treated differently or not advised properly based on their race or income.

This relates to recent news as an innocent black man, George Floyd, was killed by police showing how the criminal justice system has discriminated people and is not fair.

Week 7
R V Mirza
https://journals.sagepub,com/doi/bias/10.1350/ijep.8.3.186.40868
The appellant (a Pakistani man who had lived in the UK for 3 years) was convicted after a majority verdict. After the trial , a member of the jury sent a letter to Mirza- the defence counsel and the trial judge alleging impropriety on the jury's part. The defendant was convicted when his guilt was not 100% certain and this was due to racial bias

R V Fraser
https://canliiconnects.org/en/summaries/39040
The appellant (an African American schoolteacher) appealed his conviction for sexually touching a student but he was never told that he could challenge possible members of the jury. The jurors could have racially discriminated against him.

Sander V UK
https://swarb.co.uk/sander-v-the-united-kingdom-echr-9-may-2000/
An Asian man was prosecuted and charged with conspiracy to defraud. During the trial, the juror complained that the majority of the jury was making racist comments and jokes . He feared that the trial wouldn't be fair if continued so it was stopped. All members of the jury had to sign a letter, promising to only use the evidence to reach a verdict.

The similarities between these cases is that there was some form of racial bias in each which highlighted the injustices which are part of the system. You have chosen these trials due to their relation to the oppressive treatment faced by black people in today's society. This oppression has come to light due to the death of George Floyd and the uproar and protests which have happened over the past 2 weeks.

Week 7: Legal Cases


R V MIZRA: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1350/ijep.8.3.186.40868
This case is about the defendant in Mirza who was a Pakistani man and had resided in the United Kingdom for 13 years. He had used an interpreter at the trial, and following queries from the jury, the judge gave a direction that no adverse inference should be drawn from this. After the trial, a letter was sent by a member of the jury to the defence counsel and the trial judge alleging that the jury believing the use of the interpreter to be a ‘devious ploy’ and racial bias.


R V FRASER 1987: https://canliiconnects.org/en/summaries/39040
The appellant who was a schoolteacher, appealed his conviction for sexually touching a former student. A major concern was that his trial lawyer never told him he could challenge potential jurors for cause on the basis that he was African Canadian, the complainant was Caucasian, and jurors might discriminate against him. Instead, his lawyer told him he “got a lot of black guys off with all white juries”. The appellant raised concerns about race and discrimination several times, both before and during the jury selection. The lawyer failed by not telling the appellant that he had a statutory right to challenge for cause based on the principals in Parks. The lawyer’s failure to advise of the right effectively denied the accused the right to challenge for cause.


SANDER V UK: https://simplestudying.com/sander-v-uk-2001/
This case was about the prosecution of an Asian man on a charge of conspiracy to defraud. During the trial, a jury passed a note to the judge alleging that certain of his fellow jurors made racist remarks and jokes. The judge asked the jury to decide the case on the evidence rather than any prejudice. The jurors all agreed to this by signing a letter that they would only reach a verdict according to evidence and without racial bias.

The similarities between these cases is that they all show forms of racial bias. I think these cases were chosen this week because of the recent riots and protests occurring.

Week 7
R V Mirza https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1350/ijep.8.3.186.40868
The appellant was a Pakistani man, convicted by a majority verdict. A member of the jury sent a letter to the defence counsel alleging impropriety on the part of the jury. The defendant was found guilty due the jury’s failure to consider evidence fairly. This was a result of racial bias.


R V Frazer https://canliiconnects.org/en/summaries/39040
An African Canadian man appealed his conviction for sexually touching a former student. His trial lawyer never told him that he could challenge potential jurors for cause on the basis that he was African Canadian. This could have meant that the jury had gotten away with discriminating against him.


Sander V UK https://simplestudying.com/sander-v-uk-2001/
An Asian man was charged with conspiracy to defraud. During the trial, a juror passed a note to the judge alleging that some members of the jury made racist remarks and jokes. The judge asked the jury to decide the case based on evidence rather then prejudice. All the jurors signed a letter agreeing that they would only reach a verdict based on evidence and without racial bias. The Judge should have discharged the jury under the breach of Article 6 (fair trial).

These cases all contain forms of racial discrimination and bias. They seem to be chosen because of the unprovoked death of George Floyd which highlights the inequality and racial divide that’s still apparent in today's society.

Week 7

R v Mirza - https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1350/ijep.8.3.186.40868
The defendant was a Pakistani man who used an interpreter at the trial, which the judge told the jury should not affect their decision. However, they found the defendant guilty as they thought his interpreter was part of a 'devious ploy'. It was later found they did not know if he was guilty they were just trying to come to a quick verdict although despite this the court of appeal still denied the defendant's appeal.

R v Fraser 1987 -https://canliiconnects.org/en/summaries/21892
The defendant was a teacher appealing his conviction of touching a student sexually. He was not properly prepared for their trial. For example, he was never advised that he could challenge potential jurors as they could discriminate against him since he was black and the complainant was white. There was also a lack of consideration towards evidence that proved the defendant innocent for example the council refused to consider the wife as a witness person who could discredit the crown's case.

Sander v UK - https://simplestudying.com/sander-v-uk-2001/
It was a case against an Asian man. During the trial, a juror passed a not to the judge claiming that some of the other jurors had made racist jokes about the defendant. The judge asked them to make their verdict based on evidence rather than any prejudice when he should have dismissed the jury.

These cases are similar to the verdicts that were all affected by racial biases. I think these cases were chosen in light of the horrific death of George Floyd and the protests that are taking place around the world.

Week 7:

R v Mizra- the defendant is a Pakistani man who has lived in the UK for 13 years. At the trial he used an translator but the jury questioned this but the judge gave a direction that no adverse inference should be drawn from this. A letter sent by the juror suggested a failure to follow this direction (the jury believing the use of a translator to be a ‘devious ploy’) and was being racial bias. The defendants were convicted following a joint trial. The letter suggested that the jury had failed to consider the evidence properly, they wanted a quick verdict and convicted both defendants when they didn’t know which one was guilty. The court dismissed both appeals, holding itself unable to admit into evidence the terms of the jurors. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1350/ijep.8.3.186.40868

R v Fraser- the appellant (school teacher) appealed is conviction for sexually touching a fore student. A big concern was that his trial lawyer never told him he could challenge potential jurors for cause on the basis the he was African Canadian, the complaint was Caucasian, and the jurors might discriminate against him because of the colour of his skin. The appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered. The appellant raised concerns about race and discrimination several times, both before and during the jury selection. The lawyer failed to appreciate the principals established in R v Parks, which held that right to challenge for cause based on partiality in essential to the constitutional right to a fair trial. The lawyer failed to advise of the right effectively denied the accused the right to challenge for cause. https://canliiconnects.org/en/summaries/39040

Sander v UK- the case concerned the prosecution of an Asian man on a charge of conspiracy to defraud. During the trial, a jury passed note to the judge alleging that certain of his fellow jurors made racist remarks and jokes. The judge asked the jury to decide the case on the evidence rather than any prejudice. The jurors all agreed to this by signing a letter that they would only reach a verdict according to the evidence and without racial bias. https://simplestudying.com/sander-v-uk-2001/

All this cases relate to each other because someone was racially bias, I think you chose them this week because of the lack lives matter movement and to show that it can happen I court as well.

Week 8- Are juries fair?

Section chosen: Racial discrimination

- The racial composition of juries affects jury fairness.
- When black or ethnic minorities defendants are tried against an all-white jury, there are two major concerns:
1. All- white juries may treat black or ethnic majority defendants
unfairly.
2. All- white juries appear unfair.
- Concerns may surface when all-white juries try white defendants of racially motivated crimes.
- Until recently there has been no research into whether race actually affects jury verdicts.
- American research showing white juries against non-white defendants shows that juries are likely to be racially biased.
- The Auld Review of the Criinal Courts (2001) and the Runciman Royal Commission on Criminal Justice (1993) both recommended racially mixed juries.
- In 2007, the Ministry of Justice published the findings of the Jury Diversity; most defendants in most Crown Courts outside London will be tried by an all-white jury.
- In the UK, all- white juries are the consequence of population dynamics in court catchments and the process of random summoning.
- A study conducted at Black friars Crown Court found that racially mixed juries did not discriminate against all defendants.
- The Macpherson report (1999) identified racial stereotypical as a sign of institutional racism.
- Sunnafrank and Fontes (1983) found that white jurors in America viewed white-collar cimes as consistent with white criminals, but more violent with black criminals.

Week 8 - Are Juries Fair?
For this week's work, I chose to look at Jury conviction rates concerning rape. I wanted to look at the rape conviction as I think that it is one of the areas of which do show a lot of bias within jury convictions. I learned that Jurys are considered biased when there is room for sympathy concerning the victim. This is evident more frequently when it concerns a young woman who has allegedly been raped but can occur in other situations as jurors take into consideration age and gender utmost rather than evidence a lot of the time. In addition, in rape cases where a male has been the victim, the conviction rates are much much lower as many jurors find it harder to sympathize due to the infrequency of male rape trials coming to court. One example where this was proved was during the trials of the Central Park five when five young boys were convicted of the rape of a young white woman. The evidence comes in when there were no strong pieces of evidence against the boys other than their location on the night, which proves that despite the jurors may not have belive the boys committed the time, reaching justice for the woman was more important no matter who received the consequences. Rape cases also have higher conviction rates as many juries believe that rape can be considered the highest offense which can be made even over a murder. This is due to the fact when someone is raped and all of their human rights during those moments are taken away, people believe that when that happens you can never fully recover which will end up taking your life emotionally unlike physically like a murder.
After reading this and watching some videos regarding the topic, it was something I wanted to talk about. Despite the fact I want to hopefully in the future, pursue my dream of being a family solicitor I also have a huge interest in the work sexual offense solicitors do when trying to help their client. I also feel that although justice has to be served in these cases, I feel that a lot of the time mistakes can be made when sympathy overrules evidence. This is becoming better in recent years due to the progression of DNA evidence however overall juries are biased and that needs to be considered when a verdict needs to be made, in the future.

Week 8- Are juries fair?

Racial discrimination
For many decades there have been claims that the racial composition of juries affects jury decisions in this country. When an all white jury tries black and minority ethnic defendants there are two concerns, which are, that all white juries may treat BME defendants unfairly and that all white juries are unfair. Also concerns arise when all white juries try white try white defendants accused of racially motivated crimes involving BME victims. Until recently there has been no research into whether race affects jury verdicts. As a result American research showing white jurors bias against non-white defendants has been relied upon to suggest that juries here are likely to be racially biased. Both the auld review of the criminal courts and the runciman royal commission on criminal justice based recommendations for racially mixed juries on this assumption. But they both recognized that these recommendations had to be made in the absence of the evidence in this country. In 2007 the ministry of justice published the finding of the jury diversity project, which revealed that an all white jury would try most defendant in the crown courts outside London. A study in Black friars crown court in London found out that racially mixed juries do not discriminate against anyone. However the unanswered question is that ‘do all white juries outside London discriminate against BME defendant?

Week 6 - The Carlill vs Carbolic Smokeball Company was a civil case where the company provided a 'cure' to influenza in 1892. They promised £100 to anyone who took the medicine and still contracted influenza. Mrs Carlill took the Carbolic Smokeball Company's medicine but sadly a few months later, she contracted influenza. Mrs Carlill went to the bank to collect her £100 that she was promised but was turned away because the advertisement was used to sell the medicine and not reward its users. Mr and Mrs Carlill took the company to court and they won the case. I agree with the outcomes of the case because the advertisement clearly said it was going to give whoever still contracted influenza £100, the company did not stick to their policy so therefore they should have lost the case.
In the Donoghue vs Stevenson case, May Donoghue went to a café in 1928 with her friend. She ordered a ginger beer from the Stevenson brand. After she took a drink, she realised there was a snail in her drink. She suffered from shock and a stomach complaint and felt she deserved some compensation. Mrs Donoghue's lawyer makes an appeal to the House of Lords. The appeal was accepted and Mrs Donoghue received £500. I agree with the outcome of this case because it changed the law forever. The name 'Neighbour Principle' was given to this case which allows people to sue after suffering an injury in the hands of those who should be caring for us.

Week 7
R v Mirza - Given the offender's circumstances, the Court found that a suspended custodial sentence along with an unpaid work requirement of 200 hours was excessive. The 200 hours of unpaid work was at the top of the scale and given the offender's, financial difficulties, it would be extremely difficult. The judge did not make a mistake with the sentence but it was morally wrong. In the end, this was reduced to 100 hours. https://www.firesafetylaw.co.uk/r-v-mirza-2012/

R v Frazer - The offender appealed his conviction for sexually touching a former student. A key bit of information was that he was African Canadian and the complaint was Caucasian, meaning he might have been discriminated against. His appeal was allowed and a new trial was ordered. https://canliiconnects.org/en/summaries/39040

Sander v UK - Sander was an Asian man who was denied a fair trial. The judge refused to discharge the jury after a juror made racist jokes about Sander. By allowing racists into the court, Sander would not have received a fair ruling.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/may/10/race.world

These three cases are linked because of the racial biases people have against them. This could link to the death of George Floyd and the actions taken after his death to get justice for all people suffering racism.

Racial discrimination: Week 8
A Large number of all white juries tired an
Identical case in which only the race of the defendants and victims changed. This was used to answer if all white juries discriminate against defendants who are BME- black and minority ethnic.

The study found out that verdicts of all white juries did not discriminate against BME defendants.

However, Local population dynamics affected the study. All white juries in Winchester had almost identical verdicts for BME and white defendants. But, in Nottingham all the all white jury faces difficulty reaching verdicts involving a BME victim or defendant.

The only other personal characteristic that affected juror decision-making was gender. Female jurors were more open to persuasion to change their mind however male jurors rarely changed their decision.

Week 8- Racial Discrimination
Unfortunately in court, some white Jurys and other members of court racially discriminate the defendants.

- all-white juries can discriminate against defendants that are black/BME
- a study from Black Frias Crown Court found that racially mixed juries did not discriminate against BME defendants
- research into discrimination in court has only recently been conducted. Many cases which are now closed may be racially biased
- research in America shows that white juries against BME defendants are likely to be racially bias

Week 8 - Racial Discrimination

These are some points that I found interesting from reading this section of the article:

- For decades, people have claimed that the racial composition of juries can affect jury fairness.
- When BME defendants are tried by an all-white jury, there can be two main concerns; all-white juries may treat BME defendants unfairly; all-white juries try white juries appear unfair.
- Other concerns can also include alll-white juries trying white defendants accused of racially motivated crimes concerning BME victims.
- There is no evidence in the UK to show how often BME defendants are tried by all-white juries.
- No research had been conducted to look into these concerns until recently.
- American research showed that white juror bias against non-white defendants had been relied upon to suggest that juries are likely to be racially biased.
- In 2007, the Ministry of Justice revealed that most defendants in most crown courts outside London are tried by an all white jury.
- A study at Blackfriars Crown Court in London found that racially mixed juries did not discriminate against either BME or white defendants.
- Current research also explored whether jurors in this country racially stereotype defendants. (the type of crime a defendant is accused of committing has been found to affect the likelihood of white juror bias).
- In America it is found that 'white-collar' crimes (eg: embezzlement) are typically associated with white criminals, however, more violent crimes (eg: assult) are typically associated with the BME criminal stereotype.

Week 3
Things that are fair about this trail is that witness have to give their name and reason as well as they're defence so it is clear to the court who they are and why they are there before they give any evidence. Every person who is giving evidence has to be present and speak on their behalf so that it's their own evidence. Witnesses give their evidence in chronological order so that the court can keep track of what is going on and that noting in the case becomes mixed up or missed. Another thing that makes the trial fair is that the legal advisor asks the witness to slow down when talking and to talk in 1st person rather than 3rd so that the legal advisors notes are accurate and the evidence is coming in first hand from that witness. All witness that have yet to been called by the court have to be separate from witness that have been called from the court so that the witness are unable to share information and exchange what they have said to the court.

Week 4
I think sentences in the UK are fair. The reason i think this is because there are many types on sentences and punishments depending on what the defendent has done.
Depending on what the defendant has done the court is able to assign the defendant different sentences. The court will also take many things into account such as family life and income etc and look deeper into the case to understand why the defendant may have caused these actions and what sentences will be suitable for them.
They also look into what type of sentence will be most helpful and beneficial for that person as putting someone into prison they may come out and cause another crime/the same crime again. where as the court will look into giving the defendant imprisonment and counselling so that the defendant doesn't cause any more crimes and gets help.

Week 5
To qualify as a solicitor you have to have to complete a qualifying law degree, followed by the Legal Practice Course. This usually takes around six years until you become a fully professional solicitor.
Being a solicitor involes giving lots of advice and help to people who may be in court or have legal issues and legal matters. As well as protecting a persons rights and ensuring the are treated fairly. Solicitors also help and try and resolve disputes between two or more parties in court.

To qualify as a barrister you must first complete an academic stage of training, followed by a work-based stage and practical experience. It usually takes around 5-8 years to become a professional barrister.
Becoming and barrister involves going to court and providing legal advice will provide court representation and specialist counsel depending on the case. They also study and look into evidence that has been given by any witness in a case whist in court.

i would like to become a barrister as if seems very interesting and you get to look into the court cases deeper and provide advice that will help the case, as well as looking int the evidence in closer detail which seems very interesting.

Week 8- are juries fair?

1.2, Racial discrimination:
• Has been going on for several decades
• Lots of black and minority ethnics have to be tried by an all-white jury
• The all white jury’s may actually treat the defendants unfairly
• There is no research in England to show how often BME defendants or racially motivated crimes are tried by all-white juries
• No research into whether race actually affects jury verdicts
• Some research says that most defendants in crown courts outside London will be tired by an all-white jury
• A study in Blackfriars showed that racially mixed juries did not discriminate against BME or white defendants

week 8
case stimulation
i found this interesting because it depicts the links of why the jury make their decisions.
also how that my videoing the trial and then changing the race of the "criminal" can change their decision.
i also like how they used this system to make the it a fair trial.

Week 7 work.
R V FRAZER- https://canliiconnects.org/en/summaries/39040
In the R v Frazer case the appellant was a teacher who and appealed his conviction which was for sexually touching a former student. A crucial worry was that defendants trial lawyer never told him he could challenge the jurors on the basis that he was African Canadian and that the jurors might discriminate against him due to his ethnicity. However his lawyer told him that he “got a lot of black guys off with all white juries”. The appellant expressed concerns about race and discrimination several times both before the jury selection and during.

R V MIZRA: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1350/ijep.8.3.186.40868
The R v Mirza case is about a defendant who was a Pakistani man and had lived in the United Kingdom for 13 years. In his trial he used an interpreter. The jury raised some questions about the man using an interpreter in his trial but the judge said that no unfavourable conclusions should be drawn from this. After the trial had ended, a letter was sent by a member of the jury to the defence counsel and the trial judge claiming that the jury believing the use of the interpreter to be a ‘devious ploy’.


SANDER V UK-https://simplestudying.com/sander-v-uk-2001/
The case of Sander v UK is about the prosecution of an Asian man trailed for conspiracy to defraud. During the trial, a jury passed note to the judge claiming that some of the other jurors made racist remarks and jokes. The judge asked the jury to decide on the case based on the evidence presented rather than any prejudice that they may have. The jurors all agreed to this by signing a contract that they would only reach a verdict according to the evidence and without racial bias.

All these cases have some type for racial discrimination in them and I think they were chosen due to the death of George Floyd which started off the BLM movement

Week 6 - The Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company and Donoghue v Stevenson.

The Carlill v Carbolic case was a (civil) contract case dealt with by the court of appeal in 1892 . The years prior, the UK was a subject of an influenza epidemic, the defendants (Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.) in 1892 manufactured a product in which they claimed it can prevent/cure contraction of influenza or any other diseases if the instructions were followed. They were so confident of their belief that they had advertised in the newspaper stating that if anyone caught the flu after following the instructions of taking the product 3 times a day for 2 weeks they would offer a "£100 reward".
Ms Carlill purchased a smoke ball from a local pharmacist and allegedly follows the instructions as listed however still manages to catch influenza. This caused Ms Carlill to take the Smoke Ball Company to court in light of her getting her £100 reward. Ms Carlill won the case in which I agree with to an extent with the appeal court because unlike most advertisements this stated an offer which meant it made a promise and contract with the consumer and although "they" Ms Carlill got the item from the pharmacy. The manufacturer are the ones who promised to give the reward and created the offer. However, there is no physical proof which shows that Ms Carlill took the product as many times as the instruction stated, this means there is no actual way we can tell she deserves the reward as she might have not kept to the orders of the offer.
The Donoghue v Stevenson - On the evening of 26 August 1928 Ms Donoghue went to a cafe with a friend, Mary. At this cafe Ms Donoghue ordered a Paradise for herself and a ginger beer for her friend Mary. After a while Mary decided to put the remains of her drink into Ms Donoghue ice cream to make a float whilst doing this a decomposed snail came floating out. Mary claims the site of the snail made her ill and she was experiencing abdominal pain in which she visited a GP. The doctors said she has now suffered with severe gastroenteritis and shock.
Mary went to prosecute however she faced an obstacle, as she did not pay for the food she did not hold a contract with the cafe, her friend did. This meant she had to charge through the "neighbour principle" in which led her to winning the case at a British court.
I agree with the court charging Stevenson as the cafe needs to take care of consumers especially if they want a successful business.