TL10002 for legal writing. Useful for case briefs,

TL10002 ExamMatthew Ray20172086Question One – The IRAC MethodThe IRAC Method is an analytic tool that provides aframework for legal writing. Useful for case briefs, it provides a logical,easy to follow structure. After the relevant facts of the case are established, they areseparated into the following four elements in this order. 1.    Issue2.    Rule3.    Application4.    ConclusionIssueConsider the facts.

What question or legal problem is to beanswered or solved?For example: Did Mr Smith commitassault against Mr Jones? Did the actions ofCompany X constitute breach of contract with Customer Y?Rule State and cite the applicable legislation and/or the case thatanswers question of the issue and the authority from which it comes.ApplicationAlso known as Analysis,this is the largest and most important step.Detail the pertinent facts of the case.  Identify and explain how the law applies tothe facts of this case objectively for both parties. If there are multipleplaintiffs, address each individually.End the section with any relevant counter arguments.ConclusionMake a prediction on what the ruling, most likely, will be. Which party is liable and how could this have been avoided?Question Two – Analysis of Davies v NSW PolicePartiesMr Davies, Senior Constable Nguyen and Senior Constable Mayof NSW PoliceRelevant FactsMr Davies was pursued and arrested by S/Cst Nguyen, with theassistance of S/Cst May.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

This occurred after a report by taxi driver, MahamaIbrahim that he was racially vilified and punched in the back of the head byDavies who was his passenger at the time as well as three other people.During the arrest, S/Cst Nguyen and S/Cst May exertedphysical force against Davies. They claim it was required to restrain Davies.Mr Davies was forced into a concrete wall and later down onto the pavement.

While holding Davies S/Cst Nguyen pointed his gun at Daviesand said, ‘you better keep still if you value your life.’ As a result, Davies suffered facial and head injuries andfractured ribs. He claims when S/Cst Nguyen pointed the gun at him he thoughthe was about to die and is suffering post-traumatic stress disorder as a resultand is now on medication.Mr Ibrahim chose not to file charges against Davies.

Davieswas held for several hours before being released.IssueDid Senior Constables Nguyen and/or May commit batteryagainst Mr Davies?Did Senior Constables Nguyen and/or May commit assaultagainst Mr Davies?Does Mr Davies detainment constitute false imprisonment?RuleBattery is an intentional conduct that causes physicalinterference with the body of another without lawful justification.Assault is an intentional conduct that causes reasonableapprehension in another person of an imminent physical contact without lawfuljustification.False imprisonment is an intentional that totally confinesanother person to a delimited space without lawful justification.ApplicationThe conduct of S/Cst Nguyen and S/Cst May was intentionaland it did cause physical interference with the body of Mr Davies. However, therewas lawful justification for these actions as Mr Davies had to be pursued andsubdued.

It could be argued that the physical force exerted was excessive. S/Cst Nguyen’s act of threatening Davies with his gun was anintentional act that would cause reasonable apprehension of imminent physicalcontact and harm. S/Cst Nguyen’s words and actions made Davies fear for hislife. This is evidenced by Davies’ resulting post-traumatic stress disorder.

After his arrest, Davies was held for some hours while Ibrahimwas interviewed and given the option of filing charges against Davies which he declined.Davies was detained after assaulting Ibrahim, running police and resistingarrest. Even though Ibrahim chose not to file charges It is reasonable thatpolice would keep him detained while they conduct their investigations andinterview witnesses and victims. Police had lawful justification for detainingDavies.ConclusionThe physical force exerted on Davies was necessary torestrain him. It should be found that a battery did not occur.

Nguyen threatened Davies with his gun after he was already restrainedand in custody. There was no lawful justification for this act and, for thisreason, would likely be described as assault.Regardless of charges being filed or not, it is reasonablefor police told hold someone for a period of time after an arrest.  It should be found that a false imprisonment didnot occur.If Davies was my client I would advise him to drop thebattery and false imprisonment charges and focus only on the assault charge.If I was advising the police I suggest offering Davies asettlement to cover any medical expenses in exchange for dropping the case.


I'm Mary!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out