Public Law II

Coursework –

法学essay代写 This document supplements the “Guidance on summative structure and referencing” and specifically relates to questions we have received…

Word Count guidance 法学essay代写

This document supplements the “Guidance on summative structure and referencing” and specifically relates to questions we have received regarding the word count limits (which are 2500 words for the main coursework and a further 500 words for the research trail.)

As this coursework is deemed to be a ‘professional communication’ for assessment purposes. We ask that you use the ‘BPP University Referencing Guidance’ (‘URG’) system rather than Oscola. Which means that referencing is done within the main text rather than through footnotes.

In order to distinguish between those words that should be counted as part of the word count. And those that need not be, (because they operate in the same way as footnotes would do), please see the document on the next page.

This is a copy of the sample research trail from the FLS course: FLS Part 2, Workshop 8, Consolidation. The words and citation numbers that do not need to be counted have been highlighted, meaning that the word count for the full document (490) is reduced to 414 words. The same process applies for the main coursework as well as for the research trail.

Additionally, it is possible for you to reduce your word count by modifying the way in which you name cases within your text in both the coursework. And the research trail, when you refer to them initially. (As you will see from the URG, it is possible in any event to shorten the name of a case if you refer to it more than once in your work.) The names should not be abbreviated artificially but it is acceptable to reduce them in the following ways, using examples from the extract on the next page:

R (on the application of Amin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department 法学essay代写

⇒ R (Amin) v Home Secretary

Edwards v United Kingdom

⇒ Edwards v UK

R (on the application of Parkinson) v HM Senior Coroner for Kent

⇒ R (Parkinson) v HM Senior Coroner, Kent

R (on the application of D) v Secretary of State for the Home Department

⇒ R (D) v Home Secretary

Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v DSD

⇒ Metropolitan Police Commissioner v DSD

Research trail exemplar (from FLS) 法学essay代写

I searched on Westlaw for R (on the application of Amin) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] UKHL 51, [2004] 1 AC 653 using the search term ‘Amin v Secretary’.

  • This case was important in gauging the level, quality and key features of an investigation that should take place after a death in state detention or under state control or responsibility.
  • It pointed to the importance of the participation of the deceased’s next of kin in the investigation. And an appropriate level of openness, given the ‘enhanced duty’ owed in such situations.

The case has received mixed judicial consideration.

In order to understand the area of law in greater detail. I used the search term ‘Article 2’ to find a UK Human Rights blog article (M Hill, ‘The duty to investigate deaths under human rights law: part 2’ (UK Human Rights Blog, 15 July 2010) accessed 2 August 2021).

I returned to Amin and used the Case Analytics section to identify cases which supported the above factors and were cited in Amin:

  • Edwards v United Kingdom (2002) 35 EHRR 19 (ECHR).
  • Jordan v United Kingdom (2003) 37 EHRR 2 (ECHR).
法学essay代写
法学essay代写

I also used the Key Cases Citing function to identify relevant cases citing Amin:

  • R (on the application of Parkinson) v HM Senior Coroner for Kent [2018] EWHC 1501 (Admin), [2018] 4 WLR 106 – helped to develop analysis of when the ‘enhanced’ investigative duty under Art. 2 applies in medical context, namely where there has been a systemic failure in treatment. This in turn led to reference to the case of Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Foundation Trust [2012] UKSC 2, [2012] 2 AC 72 where the UKSC accepted that Art 2 imposed a positive, ‘operational’ obligation on the trust where risk of death was ‘real and immediate’.
  • R (on the application of D) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2006] EWCA Civ 143, [2006] 3 All ER 946 – partially distinguished Amin in relation to the public nature of an inquiry but followed the essential principle.
  • Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v DSD [2018] UKSC 11, [2019] AC 196 – considered in order to draw comparison to developments in the law on investigations into Art 3 breaches, where the same principles apply – more modern extension of the principle to criticise inadequate investigations where serious violence occurs, even if police failings were not systemic.

All cases referred to above had the green tick icon meaning that they have received positive/neutral judicial consideration.

I also searched on Westlaw for journal articles with ‘Article 2 ECHR’ in their title. I found one particularly relevant article: E Bates, ‘”Impossible or disproportionate burden”: the UK’s approach to the investigatory obligation under articles 2 and 3 ECHR’ (2020) EHRLR 5, pp499-511.• Included a partial critique of the current law on the ‘burden’ or requirement of investigations.

  • This fed into an evaluation of current policy on this finely balanced issue.

Word count: 490 414

 
QQ在线咨询
售前咨询热线
QQ:3554475127
售后咨询热线
QQ:3042439236