Applied Law

Actus Reus
A guilty act. To cause a person to apprehend immediate unlawful force (R v Ireland)
1 of 64
Mens Rea
A guilty mind. To intentionally or recklessly cause apprehension (Moloney) or (Cunningham)
2 of 64
Mitigating Factors
Pleading guilty, showing remorse, offering compensation, mental illness
3 of 64
Aggravating Factors
Not pleading guilty, previous convictions, planned crime, racially/religiously motivated
4 of 64
Aims of sentencing
Rehabilitation, deterrence (discouraging others from committing crime), reparation (giving back to victim), protection of public, retribution of offender
5 of 64
Types of sentencing
Rehabilitation, fine, imprisonment, community orders
6 of 64
2 Courts that deal with Civil Law
High Court and County Court
7 of 64
Standard of Proof
On the balance of probabilities of 51%
8 of 64
Outcome in Court for Civil Law
Liable (guilty) or not liable (not guilty)
9 of 64
Civil Process: Alternative Dispute Resolution
Resolving a dispute without going to court
10 of 64
Solving dispute directly (DIY method) as it's cheaper and quicker
11 of 64
Involves 3rd person acting as referee but does not solve dispute
12 of 64
Involves 3rd person suggesting ways of solving dispute through Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Services
13 of 64
Witness chooses legal professional (Arbitrator) within field of dispute
14 of 64
3 factors for Tort of Negligence
Duty, Breach, Damage
15 of 64
First established in Donoghue v Stevenson. Lord Aktin developed 'neighbour principle'
16 of 64
Development of Duty
Capuro v Dickman case established 3 stage test for Duty; 1) Reasonably foreseeable 2) Sufficient legal or physical proximity 3) Fair, just, and reasonable
17 of 64
Reasonably foreseeable
Langley v Dray or contrasting case Bournhill v Young
18 of 64
Physical proximity and Legal proximity
Physical (Smolden v Whitworth) Legal (Grant v Aus Knitt Mill)
19 of 64
Fair, just, and reasonable
Courts must decide to impose a duty based on impact of future cases (Mulcahy v MOD)
20 of 64
Tested using the 'reasonable man' test when a person commits/fails to commit an act that falls below the 'standard of care' expected (Bylth v Waterworks CO)
21 of 64
SoC expected from children
Standard expected of the child's age (Mullins v Richard)
22 of 64
SoC expected from learners
Standard expected of a professional in that area (Nettleship v Wesson)
23 of 64
SoC expected from professionals
Standard expected of a competent professional body in that area (Bolam v Friern)
24 of 64
Risk factors that may affect breach
Characteristics (Paris v Stepney), likelihood (Bolton v Stone) or contrasting (Miller v Jackson), reasonable precautions (Latimer v AEC), and social utilities (Watt v Hertfordshire)
25 of 64
Two parts to Damage
Factual Causation and Legal Causation
26 of 64
Factual Causation (using the 'but for' test. Barnett v Chelsea and Kensington Hospital)
27 of 64
Legal Causation under 'remoteness of damage' principle (D is liable if type of damage is foreseeable) Wagon Mound
28 of 64
Type of damage caused
If the type of damage caused is foreseeable, the precise form does not have to be foreseen (Bradford v Robinson Rentals
29 of 64
Thin Skull Rule
Take your victim as you find them. If the C has any medical issues that affect negligence, D is still responsible. (Smith v Leech Brain)
30 of 64
Intervening Act
May break the chain of causation (Knightly v Johns) If there are two acts that cause damage, the second act breaks the chain and is liable
31 of 64
Two types of Damages
General and Special
32 of 64
General Damages
Losses that cannot be financially quantified EG Pain, suffering
33 of 64
Special Damages
Losses that can be financially quantified EG Travel expenses, repairs, loss of earnings
34 of 64
Two types of General Damages
Pecuniary (Involves money) and Non-pecuniary (Does not involve money)
35 of 64
Heads of damage
Loss of amenity (Morris v Johnson), pain and suffering (using tariff from JSB), injury (listed in Kemp and Kemp), expenses and damage (Povey v Povey), loss of earnings
36 of 64
Calculation for future loss of earnings
Multiplicand (money earned per year) x multiplier (years left to work) max 18 years (Doyle v Wallis)
37 of 64
Lump sum
All damages paid as one sum
38 of 64
Structured settlement
Paid over period of time 1) Lump sum payment 2) Regular monthly payments 3) Further lump sum to cover contingencies
39 of 64
Contributory negligence
If C contributed to injury, % will be taken away from damages (Sayers v Harlow)
40 of 64
Res Ispa Loquitor
The thing speaks for itself, D has to prove he was not negligent if C cannot prove it but there is evidence (Scott v London and St Katherine Docks)
41 of 64
RIL proven in 3 steps
1) D has control (Gee v Met Railway CO) or contrasting (Easson v LNER) 2) Accident would not have happened if proper care was taken (Ward v Tesco) 3) Cause is unknown (Pearson v North West Gas Board)
42 of 64
Statutory Interpretation
The way in which judges decide the meaning of words in Acts of Parliament
43 of 64
Literal Rule
Natural dictionary meaning used from that period of time (Fisher v Bell-Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act)
44 of 64
Golden Rule
Judge looks beyond the literal meaning if it leads to absurdity
45 of 64
Narrow Approach
Word has more than one meaning so apply fairest meaning (R v Allen)
46 of 64
Broad Approach
Word has one meaning but applying it would be absurd so court modify it (RE Sigworth)
47 of 64
Mischief Rule
Court looks at formal law to find what "mischief" the Act wanted to remedy. Formed in Heydon's case. (Smith v Hughes-Street Offences Act)
48 of 64
Purposive Approach
Looks for purpose of Act to give Court wider scope (Jones v Tower Boot CO-Race Relations Act)
49 of 64
Delegated Legislation
Law made by body other than Parliament with authority under a 'Parent' or 'Enabling' Act
50 of 64
Orders in Council
Made by the Monarch and Privy Council, do not have to go through Parliament
51 of 64
By Laws
Made by local authorities to cover own area matters
52 of 64
Statutory Instruments
Made by Government Ministers with responsibility in law areas EG Education Reform Act
53 of 64
Judicial Controls
Courts set out control to prevent Delegated Legislation going beyond control
54 of 64
6 types of Judicial Controls
1) Enabling Act 2) Scrutiny Committee 3) Affirmative Resolution (Becomes law within 40 days) 4) Negative Resolution (Becomes law within 40 days if P do not vote) 5) Super Affirmative Resolution (Ministers can change Act) 6) Questions
55 of 64
4 EU Law making bodies
1) Council of the EU 2) The European Committee 3) The EU Parliament 3) The European Court of Justice
56 of 64
Council of EU
Main body. Government of each member state represent council, meet twice a year to discuss matters
57 of 64
European Commission
28 commissioners from each member state, each lead a specialist department
58 of 64
European Parliament
No direct power but discuss proposals and passes laws
59 of 64
European Court of Justice
28 judges, ensure law is applied and interpret the Treaty (prefer the Purposive Approach)
60 of 64
Formal agreement between countries. If signed by UK, become English law (Macarthys v Smith)
61 of 64
Binding and have direct effect (Re Tachographs: Commission v UK)
62 of 64
Each state can decide how the law should be introduced to their own country (Francovich v Italian Republic)
63 of 64
4 types of pressure groups
1)Sectional (interest of members-Trade Union) 2)Outsider (no access to law makers-Motor Cycle Action Group) 3)Insider (access to law makers-MENCAP) 4)Cause (interest in belief or idea-RSPCA)
64 of 64

Other cards in this set

Card 2


A guilty mind. To intentionally or recklessly cause apprehension (Moloney) or (Cunningham)


Mens Rea

Card 3


Pleading guilty, showing remorse, offering compensation, mental illness


Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4


Not pleading guilty, previous convictions, planned crime, racially/religiously motivated


Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5


Rehabilitation, deterrence (discouraging others from committing crime), reparation (giving back to victim), protection of public, retribution of offender


Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Applied Law resources »