The general view about a law case summary and the shortcomings and possible suggestions
Course Work 1 case summary and report
This paper entails a report that outlines the general view about a law case summary and the shortcomings and possible suggestions on the best ways of improving the piece. The paper also involves rewriting the same summery in order to get rid of the available errors as a way of ensuring that the decisions are clearly explained. The final decision by the court would then be established after correcting the summery mistakes.
Case Summery Report
This section entails a brief report about a general view of the court summery including the shortcomings, errors, and suggestions for possible improvements. The summery presents a court case on assisted murder. The summery has a number of mistakes that lead to reduced clarity. There are errors associated with grammar mistakes such as wrongly spelt words, unclear phrases, wrong punctuations, and wrong use of words. The summery does not consider the use of law or court language. Again, it is a bit unclear on the court ruling given that the summery only indicate five court ruling without any informed conclusion.
A number of words are wrongly spelt or their use brings unintended meaning. Misspelled words include euthanasia, in the first paragraph, defense in the second paragraph, parliament in the third paragraph, un-proportionate in the fourth paragraph, forcibility, Switzerland, and foresee in paragraph six. The word “weather” is used in paragraphs two and four to imply “whether.”
Unclear Phrases/Sentences and wrong punctuations
The summery has some unclear phrases and sentences whose usage makes it difficult to understand the summery. A phrase like, “The applicants were really badly disabled,” is incorrect since it uses two adverbs to show the degree of disability. At most one adverb had to be used. A case like, “So what the Court had to decide was whether there was…,” is not clear in terms of whether the court was supposed to do so or it was exactly what the court did. The sentence should be, “The Court decided on whether there was…,” The summery has other related cases of poor sentence structures, and poor punctuations (Summary of R. V. Nicholson , 2013).
Use of Law Language
The summery depicts a court case but makes use of only a few words that create an impression of a court ruling. Instead of using words like “brought” to imply the case opening, the words, “…presented before the court…,” could have been used. The summery also avoids the use of court case word such as plaintiffs, defendants, accused, prosecutor, charge, and offense among others. Such worlds bring in a court mood. Again, there is no conclusion on the court ruling. The court only breaks the case into five offenses but there is no aspects like a conclusion on the charges placed on the offenders. Corrections to such mistakes would make the summery clear and more understandable.
Case Summery of RV Nicholson
The case was presented before the Court of Appeal on July 31, 2013 by Nicholson alongside other plaintiffs. This happened after a decision about assisted suicide case and euthanasia was made by the European Court of Justice. In the case, it was claimed that the applicants were completely disabled and thus they could hardly commit suicide without assistance. The case was ruled under Section 2 of the Suicide Act 2010, which says that it is unlawful to assist a person in committing suicide. Based on the Act, it was held that the accused (the assistants of the suicides) were guilty of murder. Again, the FPP provided orders on when the accused would be prosecuted. Such an advice was provided with respect to the Purdy v United Kingdom case of 2010. AC45.
The court ruling was open for the accused to defend themselves by clarifying their defense side. The court wanted clarifications on whether there were any defense attempts by the disabled individuals. The court further held that the accused did not observe Article 8 of Human Rights Act 1950. This article 8 of this act fully protects people’s privacy. According to the Act, the court had to decide on whether the DPPP had to point out greater details on the reason behind his discretion when issuing prosecution on assisted murder. The European Court of Human Rights decided on not giving the requested declaration since it was hardly the law court’s obligation to make such decision. Judge Lord did not support this ruling. The parliament was thus suggested as the rightful body to do it. The issue was very controversial for court ruling. The decision of the court to withdraw from the decision was supported by the case of Bland. The court strengthened that the right to life essential in common law as well as under the European Act. This was carried through the claim that there is no right in committing suicide but the only problem is that people are never prosecuted after committing suicide. Any person defending the assistants has to apply to both euthanasia and assisted suicide. The parliament had however declared assisted suicide as a serious crime leading to an imprisonment period of not more than 14 year.
Banning of the blankets was however found to be a lawful action and never breached Article 8, an implication that the court was bound, although it could still have to establish whether banning blankets was proportional to article 8. This case was based on the Human Rights Act 1950, which created enforceable domestic rights to domestic courts. In contrast, it is hardly possible for the domestic courts to initiate the creation of rights over the European Courts since this could oppose the parliamentary will as well as the 1961 Acts. It was thus held the current blankets were covered in Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1950 and thus the DPPP should not have been required to detest the case.
The DPP policy should not have been accessible or forcible such that any suicide assistance would involve foreseeing the consequences of providing the assistance. The policy was insufficient and unclear to be applied by healthcare practitioners since healthcare professionals need to know waiting time of the DP before they are assisted and ensure that they care for them accordingly. The court finished the ruling by holding that there were no weight given to family relationships in the policy. The policy was very clear that anyone assisting the victims to commit suicide could be prosecuted. The court thus found the assistants guilty of their charges and deserved the necessary prosecutions.
Summary of R. V. Nicholson (Court of Appeal July 31 , 2013).