Consider whether this is a binding judgement on the issue of dishonesty in the area of criminal law. Identify key issues and critically evaluate the argument that the case of Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd

Qualified Writers
Rated 4.9/5 based on 2480 reviews

100% Plagiarism Free & Custom Written - Tailored to Your Instructions

ASSESSMENT QUESTION: (this question carries 50% of the overall module mark)

Critically examine the decision of the Supreme Court in Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords [2017] UKSC 67 
Consider whether this is a binding judgement on the issue of dishonesty in the area of criminal law. Identify key issues and critically evaluate the argument that the case of Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords [2017] UKSC 67 has brought a welcome simplification of the dishonesty test.





ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
CONTENT

⇨ Identification of Issues - Students should demonstrate the ability to accurately identify the legal issues raised in relation to:
o the Doctrine of Judicial Precedent; and
o the impact of the new dishonesty test.

⇨ Explanation of the Law - Students should demonstrate the ability to accurately explain the Judgement of Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords [2017] UKSC 67 

⇨ Identification of the key aspects and analysis of the cases and evolution of the dishonesty test - Students should demonstrate the ability to identify and explain the most important cases and identify and analyse the components of the objective and subjective tests from Ghosh to the present day

⇨ Evaluation of the argument that Ivey has simplified the criminal test for dishonesty - Students should discuss how persuasive this argument is, particularly when considering the intention of Parliament


Assessment Criteria Continued on Following Page
PRESENTATION
Students will be assessed in the following areas:

⇨ Structure – Make sure your structure is clear, logical and easy to follow.

⇨ Clarity and appropriateness of expression – This is an essential part of developing your writing skills whilst at university. This case evaluation is an academic piece of writing and so should not be written in a journalistic or “chatty” style but in Standard English; avoiding slang and abbreviations such as “they’d” and “wouldn’t”. However, this does not mean that you have to write long, complex sentences or use complex vocabulary for the sake of it. Clarity and accuracy of expression is what we are looking for, including the accurate use of legal terms. Write in full sentences which are grammatically correct. Read your work aloud to yourself for sense and fluency. 

⇨ Conciseness – Linked to the criteria above, do not feel that you should use long, complicated sentences: shorter, more direct ones are often better. Avoid “waffle” and make sure you stick to the point. Consider carefully the value and relevance of each point that you make and use your word county wisely.

⇨ Grammar, Spelling and Punctuation – Check your work very carefully and do so more than once before submitting it. Computer spell checks do not always spot mistakes, especially is the wrong word is used e.g. there/their. Pay attention to detail. You should be able to eliminate spelling mistakes and careless errors from your work. A series of errors will indicate a lack of attention to detail and will result in a lower mark. First class marks will not be available for work that is not accurately and fluently written.

⇨ Correct use of academic referencing conventions - All legal authorities and other source material should be properly cited using OSCOLA and a bibliography included in the required format. Not only should you reference all the material that you consider, you should also include all the material you have read in the course of your research in your bibliography and this must be divided into primary and secondary sources. All material must be fully reference i.e. text books should be referred to by name, author, publisher and edition; journal articles should be referred to by title, author, journal title and volume number and/or page reference and cases should be referred to by title, year and full case citation for the judgement of the most senior court that has given judgement in the case.




This are the instructions as per achieving the high score for the writing of the assignment : Guidance for students.

This guidance is intended to help you to understand what you would need to do to achieve a first-class results in your coursework. There is also some guidance which will help you to understand what you need to do for the different grade boundaries.

Follow the following steps:

• Locate, read and make sure that you understand the full judgement of Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords [2017] UKSC 67 
• In at least one good textbook such as Herring or Smith and Hogan, read about the criminal test for dishonesty under the case of R v Ghosh [1982] EWCA Crim 2. In particular make sure that you understand the two stage test.
• If you want to achieve a good 2:1 or 1st class answer and demonstrate appropriate depth and breadth of knowledge, the next step is to:
a. follow up all of the cases from R v Ghosh [1982] EWCA Crim 2 together with any cases subsequent to Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords [2017] UKSC 67;
b. consider any academic commentary on the same.

Use a good textbook. Make sure that you understand the principles of Judicial Precedent. Make sure that you understand all of the components of the objective and subjective tests and ensure that you can explain them to yourself. If there are cases on any particular point, make sure you’ve read and understand them. If you want to start with the basics, go back to your lecture notes.

A first-class answer will:

• demonstrate a clear reading and understanding of the Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords [2017] UKSC 67 and R v Ghosh [1982] EWCA Crim 2 cases
• demonstrate a clear reading and understanding of all the case law referred to in the above cases
• demonstrate that the student understands the criminal test for dishonesty
• demonstrate a clear reading and understanding of judicial precedent
• cover all of the above, including reviewing recent cases and relevance to the Fraud Act 2006
• be accurately written and properly referenced
• have a reasoned conclusion

Price: £169

100% Plagiarism Free & Custom Written - Tailored to Your Instructions