Foundations of Law: Case Assignment (1 Viewer)

[04er]

OK I thought I'd get a thread going on this assignment

I have one question so far... where they say 'what were the rationes of the minority judges', what exactly do they mean? I looked at the example answer they posted online at WebCT for 'Cattanach v Melchior' and it seems like they want us to identify the reasons why each minority judge went against the majority. Is that right? Any advice would be greatly appreciated!

 

[04er]

Hey, I have another question. When we're deciding upon the ratio for each judge individually, can we include his/her agreement with a principle decided upon in a lower court in the hierarchy (since that would make it more pursuasive (or perhaps even binding upon more courts) in later cases)?

 

[04er]

OK i'll just assume that no one can answer those questions. So i have yet another question. Is the European Convention a statute within the context of the case?

Don't be shy to post any questions you might have!

 

[felafel]

ratio - the legal reasoning behind a decision

that should help you a bit!

 

[prosaic]

ratio - the legal reasoning behind a decision

that should help you a bit!

Actually, the ratio can only be found in the leading judgment (or majority judgment in some civil law jurisdictions). Other judges might have in their judgment what could have potentially become ratio, but they are not ratio in a technical sense.

04er - judges in higher courts are not bound by decisions in lower courts but they should refer to them from time to time. However unless the ratio of a particular case in a higher court is same to that of a case in a lower court the lower court ratio does not become stare decisis in the higher court.

 

[felafel]

hmmmm

ratio - the legal reasoning behind THE decision

 

[PopcornPixie]

I just got up to the "what was the ratio decidendi of the majority judges?" question.
I'm having trouble trying to find these rationes. Are we supposed to look for statements by the judge, that solve, in a sense, the legal issues?

*totally lost*

Edit: Additional Question:

If a case takes a ratio, or a principle, of anther case being used as precedent, can that ratio of the other case becme a ratio of the current case?

 

[04er]

I just got up to the "what was the ratio decidendi of the majority judges?" question.
I'm having trouble trying to find these rationes. Are we supposed to look for statements by the judge, that solve, in a sense, the legal issues?

*totally lost*

Edit: Additional Question:

If a case takes a ratio, or a principle, of anther case being used as precedent, can that ratio of the other case becme a ratio of the current case?

I believe you are correct in your answer to the first question. As for the second question, I would like to know the answer too.

 

[PopcornPixie]

hahaha yay. I got one thing right, but, how do we knw what the legal issues -are-?

=\

p.s. can I add you on msn? It'd be good if we can discuss some ideas.

 

[tanvi]

I think we really just say what we think the legal issues are. I have two...basically they are in connection to the freedom of expression/privacy 'balance,' and whether the newspaper was justified in publishing details and the photo.

But I could be wrong...

I do have a question (or two) though. Firstly, can somebody please tell me how to cite the reading materials? Because I remember that was my problem with the last assignment.

Also, is anyone else finding that their ratio is kinda really narrow? Or narrower than that of the sample case? Just wondering...

Thank you!

 

[Komit]

Has anyone not started? Because I feel that I'm totally screwed.

 

[Lainee]

Edit: Additional Question:

If a case takes a ratio, or a principle, of anther case being used as precedent, can that ratio of the other case becme a ratio of the current case?

Nope, I'm pretty sure you can't say that's the ratio of the current case. Take a look at pg 90 of the textbook, down the bottom:

"Frequently, during the course of the judgment the judge will restate and discuss rationes from existing cases. That is simply a recitation of the relevant legal principles - a foundation for the judge's reasoning - but those statements are neither ratio nor obiter in the case before the court."

 

[04er]

Nope, I'm pretty sure you can't say that's the ratio of the current case. Take a look at pg 90 of the textbook, down the bottom:

"Frequently, during the course of the judgment the judge will restate and discuss rationes from existing cases. That is simply a recitation of the relevant legal principles - a foundation for the judge's reasoning - but those statements are neither ratio nor obiter in the case before the court."

wow thanks a bunch Lainee!
I'm having so much trouble understanding the difference between 'contextual analysis' and 'realist reasoning' for Part 2... someone help... please

EDIT: For contextual analysis, is that the consideration of community standards/values? And for realist reasoning, is that applying personal values etc? Please help me... I'm so confused

 

[04er]

Has anyone not started? Because I feel that I'm totally screwed.

I also feel that I'm totally screwed

 

[011]

I would like to know the answer to 04er's last question as I feel it's not clear in the RMs.

I'd also like to ask the question: is attorney general v guardian binding?

Also you dont count as 'screwed' if you're thinking about answering part 2 already. =P

 

[gordo]

its 1am sunday morning
i;ve written a draft for all the 1 mark questions for part 1 and made some points for the more than 1 mark question

part 2 hasn;t entered existence yet

going to bed now and going to have a bloody fantastic day tommorwo doing practically the whole assignment in one day,

top stuff...

so don;t worry komit, cause we in the same boat
i'll be happy with a pass, sif an employer would care how u did in foundations of law anyway
start cutting the hard yakka wen u finish your combined degree and do full time law

good luck all

 

[04er]

is attorney general v guardian binding?

I didn't include that case in part 1 :S *thinks if that was a good idea* The European Court of Human Rights is simply pursuasive right?

 

[Komit]

Yes. The attorney general case is binding because it is from the House of Lords. I know because that is what I'm up to now. I'll never get question 2 done.

 

[04er]

Anyone still up? I finally finished part 2 and now i'm cutting down on part 1 and still need to do footnotes for part 1... getting very sleepy....

 

[Komit]

I just finished and i dont give a fuck about editing it. I think I have done sufficient work to pass. If not - shit happens.