Lecture 2 - Legal Systems and Reasoning

• Who is the lecturer for the LAW4007 module?

  Luke Fisher
• What are the main topics covered in the LAW4007 module?

  • Adversarial vs Inquisitorial systems
  • Legal Reasoning: Law – Fact – Evidence
  • Rules of Evidence
  • Burden and Standard of Proof
• What is the ultimate aim of the adversarial system?


  To deliver justice
• According to Jon Krakauer, what is more important in the adversarial system?


  Following legal procedure than speaking to the truth
• What is the position of the defendant in adversarial systems?


  Presumption of innocence and legal representation
• What are the distinctions between adversarial and inquisitorial systems in terms of emphasis, object, and nature of proceedings?

  • Emphasis:
  • Adversarial: Justice
  • Inquisitorial: Truth
  • Object:
  • Adversarial: Prove/disprove guilt
  • Inquisitorial: Search for truth
  • Nature of Proceedings:
  • Adversarial: Conflict
  • Inquisitorial: Inquiry
• What are the roles of the judiciary and parties in adversarial vs inquisitorial systems?

  • Adversarial:
  • Judicial Role: Referee
  • Parties' Role: Control proceedings
  • Inquisitorial:
  • Judicial Role: Active Investigator
  • Parties' Role: Assist
• What type of evidence is emphasized in adversarial systems?

  Oral and exclusionary evidence
• What did Charles Clarke say about the effectiveness of the adversarial system?

  He believes it has not been particularly effective in securing justice
• What are the advantages and disadvantages of the adversarial system?

  Advantages:

  • Fair and less prone to abuse
  • Observes rights of parties
  • Allows both sides to present their case
  • Limits police powers

  
  

  Disadvantages:

  • Obligates confrontation
  • Can lead to injustice
  • Judgments may rely on arguments over evidence
  • Issues with accessibility
  • Can be tedious
• Who is Nick Freeman and what is he known for?

  A celebrity lawyer known for defending high-profile clients
• What are the top three countries ranked for their legal systems according to the provided data?

  1. Sweden
  2. New Zealand
  3. Norway
• What types of legal systems are in use across Europe?

  • Civil law
  • Common law
  • Religious law
  • Bijudicial
• What is a logical syllogism?

  A form of reasoning where one proposition is deduced from two or more others
• What is the conclusion of the syllogism: "All students are human; All humans can learn"?

  All students can learn
• Is the statement "If today is Tuesday or Thursday, I have a Legal Systems lecture" valid or invalid?

  Valid
• Is the statement "All students in England drink tea; Some students in France drink tea; Therefore, some students in France are English" valid or invalid?

  Invalid
• Is the statement "All law students are highly intelligent; Some law students are not polite; Therefore, no polite students are studying law" valid or invalid?

  Invalid
• What are the key components of legal reasoning?

  1. Identify the law determining the dispute
  2. Establish the facts supporting the propositions
  3. Determine the evidence supporting the facts
  4. Apply the law to the facts to reach a conclusion
• In the fictitious example, is Donald criminally liable for the murder of Decency?

  Yes, based on the facts and common law definition of murder
• What are questions of law and questions of fact?

  • Questions of Law: Substantive law, procedure, jurisdiction, admissibility of evidence, applicability.
  • Questions of Fact: What happened, where, what, how, who, when.
• What are questions of mixed fact and law?

  Where determining what actually happened is dependent on legal definition and meaning
• What is the significance of the s.9 Sexual Offences Act 2003 example?

  • It illustrates the distinction between fact and law.
  • It shows how legal definitions can affect the interpretation of actions.
• What does s.9 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 state about touching?

  A person aged 18 or over commits an offence if they intentionally touch another person sexually if the other person is under 16 and the offender does not reasonably believe they are 16 or over
• What is the legal definition of murder according to common law?

  Where a person of sound mind unlawfully kills any reasonable creature in being under the Queen’s peace, with intent to kill or do grievous bodily harm
• How does Donald's intention to kill Decency manifest in the example provided?

  Through his words and actions, which demonstrate unequivocal intent
• What are the implications of both parties being convinced they will win in a legal case?

  • It can lead to a conflict of perspectives.
  • It raises questions about the determination of legal merits.
  • It complicates the resolution of the case.
• What is the importance of distinguishing between law and fact in legal reasoning?

  • It helps clarify the legal issues at stake.
  • It ensures that the correct legal standards are applied.
  • It aids in the accurate interpretation of evidence.
• What are questions of mixed fact and law?

  They are questions where determining what actually happened depends on legal definitions and meanings.
• What does s.9 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 state regarding offences committed by a person aged 18 or over?

  • A person commits an offence if he intentionally touches another person.
  • The touching must be sexual.
  • If the other person is under 16, the offender must not reasonably believe they are 16 or over.
  • If the other person is under 13, the offence is committed regardless of belief.
• What is the age threshold for a person to be considered under 16 in the context of s.9 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003?

  Under 16
• What is the age threshold for a person to be considered under 13 in the context of s.9 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003?

  Under 13
• What did Lord Reid state in Brutus v Cozens (1972) regarding the meaning of ordinary words?

  The meaning of an ordinary word of the English language is not a question of law.
• What is the distinction between an error of law and a question of fact according to Wade and Forsyth?

  There is a total lack of consistency in how courts differentiate between fact and law.
• What did Leon Green state about the terms 'law' and 'fact'?

  They have rendered better service in legal science and are creations of centuries.
• What did the Lords state in Johnstone v Sutton (1785) regarding "probable cause" for prosecution?

  • The question of probable cause is a mixed proposition of law and fact.
  • The truth of the circumstances is a matter of fact.
  • Whether those circumstances amount to probable cause is a question of law.
• Why is the distinction between law and fact important?

  It defines the function of the judge and jury and establishes rights of appeal.
• What is one reason why the distinction between law and fact is important in legal contexts?

  Legal points need public justification.
• What is a problem with the law/fact distinction?

  Some concepts, like 'reasonableness', can be confused between objective and subjective assessments.
• What is the process of proving facts through evidence?

  • Establishment of a fact by the use of evidence.
  • Anything that can propose whether a fact or proposition is true or false.