WorksheetsExperience Law Quiz
Total questions: 11
Worksheet time: 20mins
One method of alternative dispute resolution involves a third party who, similar to a judge, hears both sides and makes a binding decision. This is called:
Mediation
Arbitration
Negotiation
What are some differences between Civil Law and Common Law systems? Mark the correct answers.
The existence of jurors in courts.
The codification of law.
The parliamentary-presidential system of government.
The binding force of judicial decisions (case law).
The existence of supreme courts.
In September 2023, the UK Parliament passed the 'Framework for Elections Act', according to which new elections will be held once every 5 years. A few months later, in February 2024, after important political events, the Parliament passes an Act that calls for early elections in May 2024. A member of Parliament approaches you to ask for legal advice. Your answer is that:
The 2024 Act is illegal, as it violates the 'Framework for Elections Act'. Therefore, early elections will not be held.
The 2024 Act is lawful, and early elections will be held in May 2024.
The power to decide when elections will be held belongs to the Government, not Parliament, therefore the Acts are without effect.
The Acts are conflicting, therefore none is valid. A new Act will have to be passed to solve the conflict.
The Supreme Court has the power to examine:
The whole case that is being appealed.
Only the evidence and factual questions of the case that is being appealed.
Only the legal questions concerning the case that is being appealed.
Parliamentary systems differ from presidential systems in that (mark all correct answers):
There is no president, only a prime minister.
The parliament has unrestrained power.
The prime minister is the head of the government.
The government needs the confidence of the parliament at all times.
Which of the following human rights are individual (civil) rights?
Right to property
Right to education
Right to public healthcare
Freedom of expression
Right to privacy
Jamie is a student in Oxford renting a studio. His landlord, Claire, who makes her living by renting out studios in her property, decides to call for an early termination of his contract. Jamie reached out to you, enquiring whether Claire should respect his right to private and family life under the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights, which he believes would be infringed if he was left without a home in the middle of the term. You advise that:
He has a right to remain in the studio under the aforementioned Act and Convention.
He does not have a right to remain in the studio under the aforementioned Act and Convention.
X is a criminal who has abducted and is keeping 5 children in an unknown place. The police have captured X, but they cannot find the children. It has already been two days, and now their lives are threatened. Though the police have been fiercely interrogating X, he has not revealed where he is keeping the children. A police officer approaches you for legal advice. She is confident that if they use intimidation, deprive X of water and food, and do not let him sleep for some days, he will reveal the location of the children and they will be able to save them. However, she is concerned that the police might be found guilty of violating Article 3 (Prohibition of Torture) of the ECHR. You advise that:
The acts described do not constitute torture under Article 3.
The ECHR is not applicable in this case.
Article 3 is relevant in this case. However, it conflicts with the children's right to life (Article 2 of the ECHR). When human rights conflict, they must be balanced through the proportionality test. In this case, the protection of the lives of the children is a legitimate and necessary aim for infringing Article 3 of the ECHR, as there is no alternative, and it is proportionate to the danger. Therefore, the police can lawfully use such tactics.
Article 3 is relevant in this case, and will be violated if the police use such tactics. A proportionality test is not applicable because the prohibition of torture is absolute, meaning that it cannot be interfered with under any circumstances.
A defendant was charged with bigamy under a statute that made it an offense to "marry" someone while already married to another person. If taken literally, the law would not apply to someone who goes through a marriage ceremony while already married, because the second marriage would be legally void. This interpretation would render the law ineffective against bigamy. To avoid this, the court interpreted "marry" to include going through a marriage ceremony, even if the second marriage would not be legally recognized. In your opinion, the court applied:
The literal rule
The golden rule
The mischief rule
V, a simple thief, removes a gas meter from the wall of a house in order to steal money. However, this causes a gas leak, which eventually leads to an explosion that injures a neighbour. V is charged with causing bodily harm to the neighbour. In your opinion:
There is both actus reus and mens rea, and there is no defence. V should be found guilty of bodily harm.
There is actus reus, but not mens rea. He is to be declared not guilty of bodily harm.
There is actus reus, but he had no intention. However, he could have predicted it; therefore, he is guilty of bodily harm by negligence (mens rea).
There is no actus reus, as there is no direct causal link between the act of stealing and the gas explosion.
Which of the following is NOT a part of (Public) International Law?
International Human Rights
Law of the Sea
Contracts signed by individuals of different citizenship.
International Criminal Law
