The University of the South Pacific          
Examinations
Semester 1 - 2003
Emalus Campus
 

 

 

SCHOOL OF LAW

 

 

COURSE NAME:                               LEGAL METHOD AND PROCESS

 

 

COURSE NO:                                                LA 102

 

 

TIME ALLOWED:                              3 hours

 

 

READING TIME:                                10 minutes

 

 

NUMBER OF PAGES:                                   9 (including cover page)

 

 

NUMBER OF QUESTIONS ON PAPER:      15

 

 

NUMBER OF QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED:   7

 

 

MARK ALLOCATED FOR EACH QUESTION:       Parts A – D:     10 marks

                                                                        Part E:                        20 marks

                                                                        Part F:             40 marks

 

 

TOTAL MARKS:                                100

 

 

 

MATERIALS PERMITTED IN EXAMINATION ROOM:

 

  1. No additional materials are permitted in the exam room.

 

 

 

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS

 

  1. This exam is divided into 6 parts.

 

  1. Answer any one (1) question per section in parts A – D.

 

  1. Answer all questions in Parts E and F.

 

 

 

 

Part A: Reading and writing

 

 

Marks for section:                                    10

Suggested time for section:         20 minutes

 

Answer any one (1) of the following 3 questions.

 

Your answer for each should be 2 – 3 paragraphs long.

 

 

 

  1. Lawyers should use plain English as far as possible. Explain the key features of plain English and why plain English should be used.

 

 

  1. It is recommended that law students use active reading. Explain what active reading is, why it is important, and how to read actively.

 

 

  1. Law uses a lot of jargon. Define jargon, explain why law uses so much jargon, and suggest some techniques that may be helpful in coming to grips with legal jargon.

 

 

Part B: Research

 

 

Marks for section:                  10

Suggested time for section:   20 minutes

 

Answer any one (1) of the following 3 questions.

 

Your answer for each should be 2 – 3 paragraphs long.

 

 

 

  1. Explain the difference between primary and secondary sources of law and how each should be used when solving a legal problem.

 

 

  1. You have been asked to find McLoughlin v O’Brian. You know that it is a torts case dealing with compensation for nervous shock. Identify 4 different methods for locating the citation to this case and explain which method or method(s) you prefer and why.

 

 

  1. Legislation is an important source of law. Explain what different sorts of legislation there are and how legislation gets created.

 

 

 

Part C: Referencing

 

 

Marks for section:                  10

Suggested time for section:   20 minutes

 

Answer any one (1) of the following 2 questions.

 

Your answer for each should be 2 – 3 paragraphs long.

 

 

 

  1. List 3 reasons why it is important to reference your work properly, and explain why each of these reasons is important.

 

 

  1. Explain what a case citation is, what should be included in citations for published (or reported) and unpublished (or unreported) cases and why these elements should be included.

 

 

Part D: Ethics and the Legal profession

 

 

Marks for section:                  10

Suggested time for section:   20 minutes

 

Answer any one (1) of the following 4 questions.

 

Your answer for each should be 2 – 3 paragraphs long.

 

 

 

  1. What do you think are the qualities of an ideal lawyer? Why do you think that an ideal lawyer should possess these qualities?

 

 

  1. What are contingency fees? Do you think that they are ethical? Why/why not?

 

 

  1. Generally, what are the requirements of being admitted to practice as a lawyer? Why do these requirements exist?

 

 

  1. Is moral decision making the same as legal decision making? Why/why not?

 

Part E: Case analysis

 

 

Marks for section:                              20

Suggested time for this section:        35 minutes

 

 

 

  1. Read the following case and answer all of these questions. The marks for each individual question are stated at the end of each.

 

a)      What is the correct citation for this case? (4 marks)

 

b)      What was the appellant charged with? (2 marks)

 

c)      What was the outcome of the first hearing? (2 marks)

 

d)      What are the grounds for the appeal, and why is the appellant appealing on those grounds? (4 marks)

 

e)      What was the outcome of the case? (2 marks)

 

f)       Why did the judge decide the case in this way? (6 marks)

 

 

HIGH COURT OF SOLOMON ISLANDS

Crim. App. (HC) Case No. 6 of 1996

DAVID IRONIMO v REGINAM

Before: Muria, CJ

Hearing: 8th November 1996 - Judgment: 8th November 1996

MURIA, CJ:

The appellant pleaded guilty to one count of storebreaking contrary to section 293(a) of the Penal Code and was sentenced by the Auki Principal Magistrate's Court to 18 months imprisonment. He now appeals against that sentence on the ground that it was excessive.

The main argument put on behalf of the appellant is that the learned Principal Magistrate did not take into account the appellant's guilty plea and payment of compensation. Had those factors been taken into account, the sentence would have been appropriately less than 18 months.

I have observed from the record that in his reasons for sentence, the learned Principal Magistrate clearly took into consideration the appellant's plea of guilty, his cooperation with the police and the fact that he was a young offender. The learned Principal Magistrate then balanced those with what he considered to be the aggravating features of the case, namely, the offence was committed in a group and it was planned. Having done that the learned Principal Magistrate imposed an 18 months custodial sentence.

On the facts of the case, it is obvious that the accused had planned to go to the victim's store at night and to steal therein. Having gone to the store during the day, the appellant and two others later came back at 10 pm purposely to break into the victim's store and to steal therein. It was the appellant who broke into the store using a screw driver while his two friends kept a look-out outside. The appellant took the goods from the store and passed them out to his two friends who waited outside. The total value of the goods was $640.00. Those facts were agreed to by the appellant.

On those facts it could hardly be surprising that the learned Principal Magistrate took a firm view. The aggravating features referred to by the learned Principal Magistrate were justified to be so considered In fact an additional aggravating feature not mentioned by the learned Principal Magistrate is the fact that the offence was committed at night.

I feel the appellant was fortunate that he was only sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, in these circumstances. An offence of this nature particularly committed in company after a plan merits a sentence of more than 18 months imprisonment. This court in such a case on appeal has the power to increase sentence to merit the seriousness of the offence committed. I will not, however, do that in this case.

On the argument regarding payment of compensation, I feel the record does not show that the appellant paid compensation. Rather the record shows that the appellant and his friends were made to give one pig, seven red money and 500 porpoise teeth to the victim before the commission of the offence. I would prefer the argument put by the learned DPP in this regard.

However, even if there was compensation as submitted by counsel for the appellant, it would not make any difference to the sentence of imprisonment in this case.

In those circumstances, I feel the sentence of 18 months imprisonment sentence should not be disturbed.

Appeal dismissed.

 

 

Part F: Problem analysis

 

 

Marks for section:                  40

Suggested time for section:   65 minutes

 

Answer both questions.

 

 

1.      Problem solving using IRAC (25 marks)

 

On the night of 20 February 2003 Willie went to The Sunrise Bar. He got drunk. Once he was drunk he wanted to keep on drinking, but did not have enough money to pay for his drinks, so he opened an account with The Sunrise Bar. On leaving he signed a contract with the bar to pay his account. The contract states “I, the undersigned, agree that I owe the Sunrise Bar $436 for drinks on 20/2/2003”. The next day Willie found a copy of this agreement in his pocket. He does not remember signing it.

 

Willie has come to see you to find out if he has to pay this $436. He says that there is no way that he could have drunk that much in one night, so the account must be wrong.

 

You have done some legal research and found the following rule about contracts entered into by drunk people:

 

At common law such people can be held liable for contracts for necessaries, (food, clothing, housing et cetera) but all other contracts made by them whilst they were incapable can be cancelled by them. The other party has no right to set aside the contract, however.

 

For this to apply at the time the contract is made

 

̃     the person must be incapable of understanding what they were doing

̃     the other party must know, or should have known of the incapacity

 

 

Write a memo using the IRAC style that analyses Willie’s position in respect of the Sunrise Bar.

 

 

 

2.      Questions of fact and law (15 marks)

 

Sam has come to seek legal advice on the following problem:

 

Sam says that in June 2002 he entered into an agreement with Joel. The agreement was not put into writing, but was made orally. Under the terms of this agreement Sam was to supply Joel with bags of kava. The set price per bag was $100. Sam says that between June 2002 and January 2003 he sent 100 bags of kava to Joel. The total value of this kava under the agreement was $10,000. Sam says that Joel only paid $80 per bag, or $8,000 in total. He says that Joel claimed that the bags of kava Sam sent were only 40 kilograms each, and not 50 kilograms as had been agreed, so Joel reduced the price accordingly. Sam denies that the bags of kava weighted only 40 kilograms and wants to claim the outstanding $2000.

 

a) Identify the questions of fact in this problem.

 

b) Identify the questions of law in this problem.