Entry 30

Well today has two versions. Pre-Tottenham and post-Tottenham. I’m typing this in a post-Tottenham world.

I had far too great of a time with the Fighting Cock and watching Spurs, along side Leo, to type out a proper response. Tomorrow I promise you a full response about public, equity and land law.

For now, Tottenham have qualified top of the group against Madrid and Dortmund (and Apoel). Honestly, I’m in cloud nine and there is no point in talking about law until tomorrow.

I’m in cloud nine and just wish to enjoy it!

Entry 29

Another Friday entry written on the phone. Sorry for the spelling and grammar mistakes. (Hopefully I will not make this a habit. I dearly miss sleep)

Today I had just Criminal Law, with a lecture in the morning and then a tutorial in the afternoon.

In today’s lecture we continued with our look into Homicide, particularly in the sense of manslaughter. The actus reas is the same in murder, so what we explored is the difference in mens rea.
From a consequentialist view (totally not discussed this in class, nor in the same way) there is no difference between the two. However the Law takes more of a deontological view, in that the intentions do natter. However looking through the case law with Woollins and statutes regarding loss of control, this is not always the case. From Woollins, there was too large of scope to determine if the case was murder and in the areas regarding strict liability there seems to be a disregard for the mens rea in order to stop love (or in the words of the professor: luuuv) crimes being justified (such as infidelity causing loss of control). So the law seems to differ here and places normative values (nod to public law (total in joke) ) into the legal system, which I would argue should be left to the jury. Not the judge or parliamentarians to decide.

The tutorial is pretty much a continuation of the lecture, but we were given some feedback on the coursework we handed in. Apparently we were quite impressive, but I’ll wait and see when I get back my paper.

Also, almost done with my public law essay. So at least there’s that. However this weekend is all about the North London Derby!

Entry 28

Today was just about EU law and me forgetting my notepad at home….Unfortunately, Land Law was cancelled today, so all I had to do was manage with having no notes on EU ready for today.

In short, it did not go well. I am (at the moment at least) heavily reliant on my preparation work.  For the tutorials [in EU Law] I have the lecturer as my tutor, so you don’t want to create a terrible impression of yourself. However, not saying anything doesn’t bode well if you do it consecutively. We went over a problem question which I had forgotten all the details about. Quite frankly, when being asked a question, I probably looked like a deer in the headlights. Clueless. I did have my laptop with me. However, I do prefer to have my notes done by hand. I just remember it better (well…usually), so I was able to get some crib notes off the net, but they weren’t useful in the context of the problem; rather the cases related. Well at least it won’t happen every time (fingers crossed)

In my extended break, I was able to get the majority of public law essay done. If given another solid three hours of work and it’ll be done. So that’s something positive.

Finally, at the end of the day, I had the EU Law lecture. We were having a look at State  Liability for not implementing directives.  If I had the energy and no work for tomorrow, I would probably go into the topic a bit more, but to put it short.

1. Not a massive fan, but I get why (common market et al.)
2. There needs to more parity across the common market. Otherwise, individual rights are worth more depending on what area you happen to be in (regarding remedies received)
3. The Union cannot be giving money, as it’s money is from Member States (when the Union is involved)
4. However, while having States liable is a good idea in principle the current layout (to create more simplicity) is just a copout.

Entry 27

Today I had an exciting day with a double set of lectures followed by another representative meeting.

Before going into my lectures, there has been some change from my work as a course rep already. One major, being a change to timetabling for one group due to having too many hours in a row, which is against University policy. The downside for them though is that their class has been moved to Friday afternoon and they now have a few tutorials in a row. Not ideal, but’s only until the end of the term, but it is nice to see change quite rapidly. The other is having a more extended break between our two lectures today.

Today in Equity and Trust we focused on the beneficiary principle and within it the simple issue of Non-Charitable Purpose Trusts (NCPTs) which are essentially what it says on the tin (trusts that provide no public good). The problem resulting from them is the fact they can go on forever. Hence there are rules in the common law that limit their time span… Actually, I’m noting going to delve into how they are formed and all the issues revolving around them. I want to talk about the exemption of pets from the rule. So pets are allowed to be NCPTs mainly because someone generally has to look after the animal and we were given examples of these multi-millionaire animals. While the notion is ridiculous, it’s not unheard of for this happen. In the UK there is an issue with enforcement of how the money is spent, as the animal is unable to go to court and take legal action against the trustee. So the trustees could abuse their position. In this example, you also have the notion that next of kin could be wanting to harm the animal or try point out flaws in the trust, as they would be the beneficiaries of a resulting trust. However, I think that there a further question that could be raised. Can next of kin be a trustee? Well, yes (or I have really have messed up my basic understanding of how trusts work). So as there is apparently less tax involved in this method of trusts, could this not be used as a tax loophole? I’m going to have to get back to you and ask my lecturer.

In Tort Law we focused on Liability for Psychiatric Harm/Illness. As usual with Tort lectures, we spent most of the time cases. However, there has been continual, but gradual, change in the way that approaches this. This week I relied more on the lecture handout and making adjustments to that, rather than writing more on my A4 sheet. I found it more useful in paying attention, but due to the lack of workspace, it’s harder to have everything in front of you and still have a good writing area. The handou is in a book format and due to the size of the note cards, they do not line up well. I’ll probably adjust again next week.

Entry 26

Welcome back to another exciting week. Yesterday I had a productive day in the library, and I was able to get my work for Tuesday (today) and Wednesday (tomorrow) finished, as well as starting on my essay which is due in two weeks. The essay is in Public Law and is about the Diceyan Orthodoxy and how it’s relevance in today’s world.

Today I started my day off with a Tort Law tutorial, and I was well prepared for the class regarding content, but I think I need to find a place to put all these cards. I have so many that it is hard to find the case I wish to talk about. Say I want case X, I have over 100 cases to go find it (this is in Tort alone) and thus need to be more selective ion what I am carrying. Also, by not colour coding the cards to a particular section of the law, it gets a bit confusing. I plan on using some paper clips for the interim, but I’ll probably have to string tie them when sections are complete.

I also want to talk about a question we went through today. The way the tutor went through the question was through many cases regarding breach and how they relate the situation (I do realise how vague this may seem). The hypothetical example was a factory worker being hurt and how would we advise them given the specific facts. The thing that stood out to me was that the accident was foreseeable. Hence, I found one case that said if it was unforeseeable we could not find the breach. The logic being, if this is the case; then the reverse must be true. I then just applied some simple economic reasoning which merely is a cost-benefit analysis. I’ve assumed that the factory owner and industry (who have the same practice) have concluded the following: P(risk)X(Cost of Risk)>Benefit. Thus, while they are not negligent, they are aware of the risk and should be liable for damages, otherwise it cannot be a foreseeable (or reasonable evaluation of the) risk. I’m not 100% about this, so I’ll be heading to office hours on Thursday.

After this I had this, I had Public Law, and we went to the European Community and Union laws. This tied nicely into my essay as we essentially examined the concept of Supremacy from the viewpoint of Public Law, as well finally looking at the Miller case. Unfortunately, in the lecture, we didn’t dive into this in quite enough detail for my liking. However, since my essay is around the issues of what parliament can do, I’ll be able to incorporate it into my piece hopefully.

Entry 24

Today has been a ridiculously long day! I’m really knackered but still, have more work to do to be prepared for tomorrow. I don’t have loads of energy as well so I won’t write a typical length blog. Sorry to disappoint.

Today started with Land Law, and honestly, I really like land law (yes, I’m saying this is about a few modules now, but guess what? I’m really enjoying law more than I expected). I also had a new constraint today, with a fellow course mate who was not feeling well and I told them that I would take notes for them. This meant for the first time, my notes were no longer for myself and had to be legible to someone else. Luckily it was a topic we already started, Registered Land. We covered the favourite classes subject, adverse possession. The one thing I had to remind myself of today, was adverse does not mean hostile all the time. It’s about intention, and this was brought up today when we looked at consequences of adverse possession with both registered and unregistered land. While there is a ton of material that we covered, it is systematic. And that enables me to understand the topic quite quickly. The only other thing we talked about registering titles and started on how to register mortgages, but that we ran out of time.

In the time between my next lecture (apart from lunch), I continued with my contract law material, but not much new to say about that.

I ended the day with EU Law, and it could keep up writing with the lecture (seriously the lecturer talks at speeds excess of 120km/h). Apart from the quick introductory notes about Brexit (which I will avoid writing about) on the future trade bills that the UK is edging towards and how they relate to EU law, we were exploring the general principles of Law in the EU (GPL). The GPL is how human rights became of EU law, without being expressly mentioned in the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights. What makes this topic interesting now is Brexit, but the situation in Poland. I’m not going to go into Polish politics because there are far better authorities on the topic, but the BBC had good coverage on the debate within the EU parliament. If you don’t know much about the issue, I would suggest a quick search on the matter.

That’s it, back to work!

Entry 23

Today was a slightly different Wednesday for me. While I usually just have Equity followed by Tort, today I headed into University quite early and decided to work on Contract Law. Hence I will jabber about my thoughts on it.

I don’t really talk about contract law on the blog, and that’s due to it being an online lecture and that I just spend time reading on it on the tube in bits and pieces. I’m a bit behind on it. Hence I came in early to do some work on it, but the more I read about it. The more common sense seems to apply to it. Nothing seems to be shocking or makes you wonder why did the judge rule that. The only frustrating bit, it’s the fallibility of people not doing things correctly. It is entirely possible that I’ve missed something. However, I do enjoy the format of lectures allowing me to study at my own pace.

After a morning in the library, I was in back with Equity, and we had finally left the terrifying thought of formalities and moved onto the constitutions of trusts. The lecture was entertaining as the cases involved with the topic are just so bizarre that all you can do is smile. They are somewhat unfortunate in some cases, and others make you think, who acts like this? Equity is becoming my favourite topic, slowly but surely.

After Equity was followed by Tort. The, unfortunately, follows straight after Equity, and it doesn’t give you that time to freshen up your mind. The great thing about Tort is that the lectures are really really useful! I always say that it is just about cases and that has not changed. When going through the defences of negligence claims today, I now have a briefcase summary of all the cases that we went through today and all the necessary extra information around them. I am starting to appreciate the case focus in Tort as it helps bring context of the rule that is used by the courts. I’ve continued using the note card method, and in the lectures, I’ve essentially given up writing general notes and just moved onto the cards. The only thing to really notice from the lecture is that you can’t sue our getaway driver for negligence if they crash. Shocking!

 

Entry 22

Welcome back, a new week but same old me.

Today started with a tutorial in Equity and Trusts, and we looked at the issue of formalities. I cannot reiterate how mind-bending this topic is sometimes. Thankfully this is the hardest part of the course, and it comes in early in the course. The rest of the class and myself are finding the topic a bit difficult to grapple with, and this was not helped by having an online lecture for this topic, but c’est la vie. Thankfully the tutorial was useful as we did go through the issues of formalities step by step and having done the work beforehand for the worked example it was easier to go through. Though if you were to peek at my notes, the most likely response would be: is that even English? A friend asked for them to take them to her class and after 2 seconds she said: “It’s okay Hanik.” The key to formalities (or what it seems to be, is the understanding the difference between equitable and legal ownership as well as knowing what type of trust it is. The reason there is confusion (or at least in the cases we are analysing) is that our appellants are trying to avoid tax. This results in them avoiding doing the simplest thing, which is to put it writing with unambiguous language.

 

This was followed by a lecture in Public Law. We began by continuing on what we started last week: The Scope of Judicial Review. The case of GCHQ shows us the change in trend from looking at whether a law should be under judicial review not if it were statute or prerogative law, but to justiciable or non-justiciable. This seems to leave issues that are not part of the judicial review to matters that are regarded as political in nature in general. The best example of this (which is the topic of next weeks class) is the Miller case (though that is also about the need for parliamentary review over prerogative power). Even with this change, we saw the “finding” of prerogative powers in the courts of keeping the peace and how this relates to the usage of prerogative powers when there is a potential clash with the statute.

We then moved onto a whirlwind tour of the jurisprudence of the ECJ. I say whirlwind as our lecturer said that we have already covered most of this in our EU law lectures. And he wasn’t joking as we went through 42 slides in about 40 minutes. There was far more information on it.

I had to miss my land law tutorial (don’t worry I’m going to office hours for it) to go the first Staff-Student Liason Meeting. So now, I’m going to type up my notes and send a very Hanik email for the official unofficial minutes.

Entry 21

Today we can call Criminal Law Day. As any student can attest, there is nothing better than a two lecture on a Friday morning at 9am. This was evident in the morning where most of the class were running into the lecture theatre.

We spent the lecture continuing on causation and looking at mens rea and actus rea. Just like tort law we only spend our time going through cases. However, there was a notable exception today in a lecture where our lecture ran from one corner of the hall to the centre and gave a fake kick. He was so full of joy, he did it again! It was otherwise just a standard lecture with no other significant points to mention other than I have continued with the card method to write down cases.

The day ended with a Criminal Law Tutorial (hence Criminal Law Day). We started off the class by going through a problem question together (that none of us seen) and going about the method to answer a question about criminal liability. While this was a beneficial part of the class, couldn’t help but wonder why this wasn’t done before. Oh well, c’est la vie. We then went onto the tutorial questions set for this week.

So that’s one more week done. Thank you for the continuing support.

Entry 20

Alright, I’m still a bit high from yesterday’s win. But can you really blame me? Spent the whole day with a massive grin on my face (which is quite usual for me come to think about it or see any of my photos…). Today I was back into the thick of things with EU Law tutorial& lecture, with Land law in between.I’ll quickly start with yesterday, which was a double whammy of Tort and Equity.

Yesterday saw the beginning of my new process of using note cards (see attached picture). I actually found this a magnificent way to get cases down in lecture as well as you for tutorial preparation. As each case is on a small note card, it forces me to just stick to the main details of the case and the decisions by the judge. All in all, this is beneficial for keeping things in order as well being used for revision in the future as I am making flashcards as we go on. I definitely prefer this to mind maps as I can always just write a new card if I make too many errors or find that I want to change things on the card. Maybe that’s part of the perfectionist inside of me. Don’t like to see lots of crossed out things from a resource I wish to learn from. (though if you were to see my A4 notes in lecture, boy or boy is it messy)

This was after an Equity Lecture where I kept on with my business and where we explored formalities. I’m going, being honest with the fact that I’m still grappling with the concept of formalities and probably to spend a bit of time over the weekend re-reading the cases and the and the textbook. The one major thing that I did take away from the issue of formalities is that by just doing the paperwork correctly; saves everyone a heck of a time and that being clear and precise is worth its weight in gold.

Today I started my day pinching myself, to check that last night wasn’t a dream…I mean…

Today started with my EU tutorial where we spent the majority of our time discussing the mechanics of Article 50. The triggering, the process of how it works and the consequences of the Article. Hopefully, I want to go into a full Brexit rant again but sometimes it just really annoying to see how people don’t understand one of the most crucial issues of our time (in Britain). In class, we talked about the vagueness of the Article and with such broad scope how this is detrimental in some ways; no one expected it to be triggered thus not fleshed out. In other ways, positive; I’ll say that it is positive because countries may leave for different reasons and this having a strict set of things that one must negotiate about, might just be a waste of time. We also looked at the reasoning of why the British government wants to start negotiating the trade deal as soon as possible and why the EU is using its’ hand to wait longer (as there is that two year limit in the treaty). This led onto the why there may need to be a transition period for non-business reasons but rather simplifying the legal route to a free trade agreement. I then brought up the fact the Article doesn’t mention us withdrawing our letter of notifying us leaving (hence saying lol jk Yurop. We’re staying fam, it was only a prank!).  Basically, it’ll probably go to the ECJ where the UK would have to fight to stay in and that the other nations might just want to throw us out. We did also discuss supremacy, but I’ve written quite a bit so far.

Then we had Land law which was just looking at propriety rights and how they transfer depending on the exchange (see section 288/29 of the Land Registration Act 2002). I wish I could say anything more, other than this, but it is a dense topic (quite rightly). Land law is becoming my favourite module, due to it’s adherence to rules to the letter.

I finally had my final lecture of the day, which was a return to EU Law. I don’t know how many times I’m going to have to write this but; THE TREATIES MATTER! Don’t bother criticising EU law until you wrap your head around this concept. It just really helps you put things into perspective when there a decision is made that seems out of place. We spent the majority of the lecture looking at how directives work and the implementations into the domestic courts worked. Essentially directives (not in themselves,  but from the case law resulting from them) give the citizens the power to the government to court over the failure to implement EU law. Why is this important, the common market requires regulation and the best people to regulate the market? The people who gain the most from the market! The consumers. I mean the citizens!

There’s probably more I can say on the topic, but I’ve typed out far more than intended to make up for yesterday (though I wouldn’t change it).