Session 2, 2023
LAWS2100 Jurisprudence
Session 2, 2023
Assessment 1: Research Essay (Weighting: 40%)
Due date: Wednesday, 29th Aug 2023 (at 23:55 Sydney time)
I. Instructions
Select and answer ONE of the three essay questions listed in Section II.
This is a research essay. In developing your answer, you should engage with the course materials, but you are also free to use additional scholarly sources. Good essays will present cogent arguments in support of ones view and discuss relevant counterarguments. Give yourself enough time to digest the readings, structure your main argument, polish your writing, and edit the document.
The word limit for the research essay is 1500 words (full name, Student ID, essay question, footnotes and bibliography are not included in the word limit). This is a strict requirement and any content over the word limit will not be marked. Exceeding the word limit could mean that all, or part of the conclusion cannot be marked this may significantly, and negatively, impact your mark.
Please use Times New Roman (12-point font size, double-line spaced, for main text and bibliography; 10-point font size for footnotes). Your research essay should be submitted as a Word document, using the appropriate Turnitin link on the iLearn page.
The essay must comply with the Australian Guide to Legal Citation (4th edition). The Guide is available here: https://law.unimelb.edu.au/mulr/aglc
Please be aware that plagiarism detection software is used in this Unit.
II. Essay questions
Can the social phenomenon that we call law be adequately explained in terms of commands issued by the sovereign? Your answer should be supported by reasons and engage with (at least, some of) the arguments developed by John Austin and H.L.A. Hart.
Are law and morality necessarily connected? Your answer should be supported by reasons and engage with (at least, some of) the arguments developed by legal positivists, natural law theorists, and Ronald Dworkin.
In which ways might law be indeterminate? If the law is indeterminate, do judges always decide cases using their discretion? Your answer should be supported by reasons and engage with (at least, some of) the arguments developed by H.L.A. Hart, Lon Fuller, Ronald Dworkin, and the Legal Realists.
LAWS2400 Torts Research Essay: Brief, Instructions and Rubric
Due:30/08/2023, 11:59pmWeighting:40%
Your task for this assessment is to write a case note and critique onReeves v New South Wales[2023] NSWDC 196 (Reeves).
Reevesconcerns four intentional torts. For this assessment, your paper should focus onone ortwoof the intentional torts discussed in the case only. The case also discusses the application of ss 3B and 43A of theCivil Liability Act 2002(NSW) (CLA). Your paper shouldnotengage with these sections due to the limited word count.
This paper has two aspects: a case note and a critique (see below for further instructions on each aspect). Your word count should bedivided evenlybetween these two aspects, but the final paper must be a coherent body of work.
The word count is 2,000 words excluding footnotes (but including anything else you write, such as headings). A bibliography is not required. Any content over 2,000 words will not be read. There is no +/-10%.
Case Note
In the case note, students are expected to cover the following aspects of the case (as relevant to the focus of your paper):
1.Citation and case details
2.Facts (brief)
3.Issues
4.Decision
5.Ratio
6.Important obiter (if applicable)
Critique
The critique must address the following question:
To what extent does Australian law governing intentional torts succeed in protecting human rights?
For the critique, the analysis in your paper should incorporate a discussion ofReeves. The analysis in your paper should also incorporate other case law and refer to arguments contained in good quality secondary sources (eg peer-reviewed journal articles, scholarly books, industry and government resources). A good place to start your research is the text, in particular paragraphs [1.70], [3.80] and [3.120] and this recent article in LawyersWeekly (availablehere).
This task aims to develop a deeper understanding of an area of law with a focus on intentional torts. The arguments in the paper must be informed by independent research beyond the text and this article. Be mindful of the quality of the resources you draw on. This case is very recent, so there will be no scholarly literature that mentions the case (note that LawyersWeekly is not scholarly).You should not refer to law firm web pages as these are not scholarly.
Suggested Approach to the Paper
1.Narrowing down the issues/topics you wish to cover in your paper is very important. The question you will address in the critique is broad, with no correct answer. You will not be able to cover everything. We are looking for coherent and well-argued responses that address the assessment brief. Narrowing down what your paper will cover will allow you to engage more fully in reasoned analysis and will assist you in attaining a better mark.
2.Begin by familiarising yourself with this assessment brief and instructions and the rubric.
3.Read the principal case and the resources above and begin drafting the case brief. The following resources may assist in writing a case note:
a.Corbett-Jarvis and Grigg,Effective Legal Writing, Chapter 5: Academic Legal Writing, in particular, pp 160-171 on case notes and pp 141-159 on writing theoretical essays: available in leganto andhere.
b.Exemplar case notes availablehereandhere.
4.At the same time, begin researching the topic more broadly. You can find MQsvery useful study support resources here.
5.Identify and communicate in your introduction the focus of your paper.
6.Revise the lecture and learning materials from laws1100 on legal writing, in particular writing in plain English, and sentence and paragraph structure.
7.Ensure your paper complieswith the Australian Guide to Legal Citation (4th ed). Be very careful that you properly acknowledge all your sources otherwise this may be considered plagiarism. Plagiarism is a serious integrity issue and will not be tolerated.
Rubric
Criterion High Distinction Distinction
Answers the question and follows instructions Clearly and thoroughly answers the set questions and follows all instructions. Clearly answers the set questions and follows all instructions.
LawUnderstanding and explanation of legal principles Exceptional explanation of the relevant legal principles. Detailed and insightful. Strong, thorough and clear explanation of the relevant legal principles.
ResearchDepth of Research Innovative/extensive use of relevant primary legal sources and/or scholarly materials. No errors in comprehension. Excellent/extensive use of primary legal sources and/or scholarly materials. No errors in comprehension.
AnalysisCritical thought and analysis of relevant issues Original, independent, and critical thought and rigorous analysis in all aspects relevant to the set question. Sources were used in the development of ideas and argument in a critical way, arriving at a logical conclusion after examining a range of viewpoints. Independent and critical thought and thorough analysis relevant to the set question. Sources were used in the development of ideas and argument with a reasonable attempt at critique. Conclusion well supported by the arguments that were developed.
PresentationStructure andOrganisation / Presentation of argument Logically and succinctly structured the content to create a cohesive and coherent analytical piece of work. Logically structured the content to create a cohesive and coherent analytical piece of work.
GrammarExpression, Grammar and Style Consistently used plain English. Consistently adhered to grammar and punctuation conventions. No spelling errors. Mostly used plain English. Mostly adhered to grammar and punctuation conventions.
Referencing Adherence with AGLC4 thorough and without error. Adherence with AGLC4 thorough with few errors.
