ENGLISH LEGAL SYSTEM & SKILLS ASSESSMENT

Word limit: 3,000 words (excluding the questions)
Part 1 – Case Analysis
Read the case of Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health
Authority and Department of Health and Social Security and using this
case only answer the following questions. Please note that you have an
extract of the case which includes the lead majority decision judgment
only. Your answers must be based on this case extract only.
1. In the court of first instance, who was the plaintiff and who was the
defendant? (1 mark)
2. Explain in your own words what remedy or remedies the plaintiff was
seeking in the court at first instance? (2 marks)
3. What did the court of first instance decide and why? (2 marks)
4. Who was the appellant in the House of Lords? (1 mark)
5. According to Lord Fraser, what was the central issue in the appeal? (1
mark)
6. What three issues did the House of Lords need to consider when
determining whether to make the declarations requested by Mrs Gillick? (3
marks)
7. Which cases were followed and/or approved by the House of Lords? (2
marks)
LLB (HONS) ENGLISH LEGAL SYSTEM & SKILLS ASSESSMENT
Law School 2
8. What was the principle of law derived from Re Agar Ellis [1883]? Did Lord
Fraser in his House of Lords judgment approve this principle? (2 marks)
9. Why was Hewer v Bryant [1970] so influential on the House of Lords
decision? (2 marks)
10.In what circumstances did Lord Fraser say a doctor would be entitled to give
contraceptive advice and treatment to a girl under 16 without her parents’
knowledge and consent? (2 marks)
11.Explain what the material facts are in the House of Lords judgment. (6
marks)
12.Which of the following is/are the ratio decidendi of the case? If you think a
statement is part of the ratio decidendi explain why. If you think a statement
is not part of the ratio decidendi explain why. (6 marks)
a) The DHSS issued to area health authorities a memorandum of guidance
stating that in respect of children under 16, in exceptional cases it was
for a doctor exercising his clinical judgment to decide whether to
prescribe contraception.
b) A child under the age of 16 years has the legal capacity to consent to
medical examination and treatment, including contraceptive treatment, if
the child has sufficient maturity and intelligence to understand the nature
and implications of the proposed treatment
c) Where the parents or sole surviving parents of a child under 16 has
deliberately abandoned their parental responsibilities, it would be wrong
to allow them to veto contraceptive advice or treatment for their child.
13.Dr Patel is a GP at the Park Medical Centre. Anke attends the clinic and tells
Dr Patel in broken English that she is worried that she may get pregnant.
She has a long-term boyfriend who she says she loves and intends to keep
seeing whatever the outcome of this visit. She is 15 years old but in some
ways seems younger to Dr Patel. She is very distressed and says that she
does not want to have a baby until she has finished school and that having a
baby would ruin her life. She says her parents are strict Catholics and do not
believe in a sexual relationship outside marriage. She says that if Dr Patel
does not help her she will resort to other methods of preventing pregnancy.
LLB (HONS) ENGLISH LEGAL SYSTEM & SKILLS ASSESSMENT
Law School 3
Using only the case extract of Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area
Health Authority and Department of Health and Social Security, advise Dr
Patel as to whether he can prescribe contraception to Anke without her
parents’ consent. (20 marks)
Part 2 – Statute Analysis
Read the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 (“the
2007 Act”) from the VLE and using these sections of this statute only
answer the following questions. Where appropriate, use authority (e.g. a
section number) from the statute to support your answers.
1. Does the 2007 Act create criminal or civil liability? Give reasons for your
answer. (2 marks)
2. Explain what the term ‘employee’ as used in the 2007 Act means. (2 marks)
3. S2(7)(a)(iii) of the 2007 Act refers to ‘any plant, vehicle or other thing’.
Explain how the ejusdem generis rule would be used to interpret the
meaning of ‘other thing’ in S2(7)(a)(iii). Under this rule, do you think a laptop
computer would fall under this section? Give reasons for your answer. (5
marks)
4. Explain, in your own words, what the prosecution must prove in order to
convict an organisation of corporate manslaughter under S1 of the 2007 Act.
(5 marks)
5. Explain the circumstances in which the Ministry of Defence will not owe a
duty of care under the 2007 Act. (3 marks)
6. Explain whether the army owe a duty of care under the 2007 Act to the
soldiers in the following situations:
(a) Private Yacoub, a soldier in the British army, is ordered by the army to
help arrange flood defences near a flooded river in the UK. The army
failed to provide him with a life jacket. (3 marks)
(b) Private Smith, a soldier in the British army, is ordered to help the police
quell a riot in Leeds. The army failed to provide Private Smith with any
protective clothing. (3 marks)
7. What factors would a jury consider when deciding whether an organisation
has committed a gross breach of duty under S1 of the 2007 Act? (4 marks)
LLB (HONS) ENGLISH LEGAL SYSTEM & SKILLS ASSESSMENT
Law School 4
8. Waterways Management Ltd (‘WM’) is a UK company carrying out
maintenance work on rivers throughout the UK damaged by flooding. Due to
recent floods, David Martindale is WM’s Chief of Operations responsible for
managing WM’s operations throughout the UK. Relevant health and safety
legislation requires employers to ensure that staff working near rivers wear a
life vest. However, David sends an email advising that all staff working in
rivers do not need to wear life vests as this will enable staff to work faster.
Hugh, an employee of WM, is working on repairs to the banks of the river
Derwent at a time when the floods have subsided and the river is flowing
calmly. Hugh reads the email and decides that as he has so much work to
do, he will not wear a life jacket while he is working on the river bank. This
will enable him to work more quickly. Hugh is aware that a life jacket is
available if he wanted it. Whilst Hugh was working he falls in the river and
hits his head on a rock. He is subsequently found dead further downstream.
a. Advise WM whether it is likely to be convicted of corporate
manslaughter under the 2007 Act. (15 marks)
b. If the following alternative situation occurred, would it make any
difference to your answer? (5 marks)
David Martindale emailed all staff reminding them of the need to wear life
jackets at all times. Ben Collins is the ‘Derwent Site Supervisor’ responsible
for five staff members (including Hugh) working on the Derwent river. Ben
advised these five staff members working on the Derwent river that they
should not wear life jackets as the river was calm and they needed to work
quickly.
9. Under the 2007 Act, if WM are convicted of corporate manslaughter, what
sanctions or orders can be imposed against WM? (3 marks).
End of Questions
TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OUR PROMOTIONAL DISCOUNT DISPLAYED ON THE WEBSITE AND GET A DISCOUNT FOR YOUR PAPER NOW!