Don’t worry I’m still about

Hey Guys,

I can’t believe it’s almost been a month since I last posted! One thing I haven’t mentioned about studying law, (which I think a lot of you would assume anyway) is that it’s very busy, there’s a lot of work to do and it can be difficult to find spare time after all the reading you’re assigned and recently I’ve had A LOT.

I think I was expecting new exciting cases all the time and that clearly isn’t happening right now, however, I have got a few good ones saved up so that over Christmas you don’t miss me too much. Anyway the purpose of this post was just to remind you I am here and I’m still posting I haven’t given up on the blog so don’t worry I will have some new cases for you very soon.

Asiyah x

Mouncer v Mouncer

Hi Guys

So I’ve realised that I’m probably not going to be able to post every day but I might have a few friends helping me out soon so watch this space!

Anyway today I have a Family Law case for you, so brace yourself. In the UK the divorce law is full of flaws (in my opinion), the guidelines for divorce are found in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (don’t worry it’ll open in a new tab, now you can read along with me) in section one subsection one it basically says you can apply for a divorce if your marriage has broken down irretrievably (so it can’t be fixed) but that’s not all. You also have to prove a fact, which there are a list of in section one subsection two; the facts are – adultery, behaviour (it doesn’t have to be unreasonable), desertion, separation for 2 years with consent and separation for five years without consent.

The case that I’m going to write about today is Mouncer v Mouncer, which was a case on separation for 2 years with consent. The husband and wife in the case decided to separate but because they had children they thought they would still live together, for the sake of their kids (it was obviously a civil separation). While living together they still did stuff like eating together, using the same space etc. so not much had changed except for the fact that they weren’t ‘a couple’. After 2 years they went to court to get their divorce and the court basically said no. They decided that Mr and Mrs Mouncer were sharing family life and therefore had not separated.

In my opinion this was ridiculous; the couple were only living together for their kids trying to keep their environment as normal as possible but the courts obviously didn’t think so. I think this case sends out a really bad message as the separation clearly wasn’t hostile and there was no apparent bitterness, it was just two people who grew apart. The Law Commission had previously stated that a divorce shouldn’t be bitter or cause hostility so this case was a complete contradiction.

What do you guys think? Should the Mouncers’ have been allowed a divorce through separation?

Asiyah x

Tell Me What YOU Think

Hey Guys

I was listening to a song the other day and it mentioned the fact that prisons in the UK are private. I personally didn’t know this and thought I’d do a little bit of research. Here’s three little facts I found that I thought were interesting –

• At the moment there are 14 private prisons in the UK (follow the link to find out which ones they are)
• The first prison from that list to be privatised was HMP Ashfield in 1999
• Approximately 11% of the prison population are in these prison

So that means that there is someone (or some people) out there making money off people who have been imprisoned. In my opinion that’s completely insane as much as I believe in locking away dangerous people I don’t think someone should be getting rich because someones locked in a cell. Maybe that’s just me what do you think?

Asiyah x

PS. Don’t worry I’ve got a case I’m posting for you soon this isn’t it for the week 🙂

R v Khan & Khan

Hi Guys

Sorry it’s been a while since I lasted posted I just wanted to find a really good case that I fully understood before putting it on here, especially because it’s my first ‘real’ post! I’ve also just created an email address which you can send me any questions or suggestions for things to talk about which is: lifewithlaw@hotmail.com so I look forward to hearing what you have to say!

So this year I’m studying Commercial Law, Law of Trusts, Land Law, Family Law and Criminal Law. Thank God for the last two because to be honest the first three aren’t really that exciting when it comes to the cases. Last year I studied EU Law, Law of Torts, Legal Method, Contract Law and Public Law. I really enjoyed Public Law and there’s a lot of stuff to do with our rights so I’m going to be looking into my old notes and getting the juicy cases from there as well as from subjects I’m studying this year.

The case I wanted to talk about today is called R v Khan & Khan (it’s a criminal case and the ‘R’ basically just means the state are the ones bringing a claim/prosecuting and Khan & Khan are the defendants). Basically the facts of the case are that Khan & Khan were drug dealers who sold heroin to a 15 year old girl, who had never used it before, she took double the amount that people who are experienced at taking heroin (people who use heroin on a regular basis) took, they were there when she took it and saw her fall into a coma (because she OD’d) and decided to call it a night and head home to go to bed (because why would they call for help??). In the morning they went back and she’d died because she hadn’t got the medical attention that she needed so they threw her in a skip to try and get rid of her body.

They couldn’t be charged for murder because it would be VERY difficult to prove that they wanted to kill her or cause serious harm (GBH – murder is a topic for another day because I haven’t studied it yet) but instead the state tried to prosecute them for manslaughter. For manslaughter you have to prove that the defendants owed the victim a duty of care, some examples of a duty of care would be a parents duty to look after their child or a doctor looking after their patient. Unfortunately when the judge heard this case he didn’t explain to the jury that a duty of care was needed so he didn’t direct the jury properly. Because of this the defendants were allowed to appeal and on appeal the conviction was quashed (it was made invalid) all because of the judge making the mistake of not directing the jury properly.

They did still get some time in jail for other charges but the manslaughter conviction would have kept them locked up for a long time. Personally, I think they should have been locked away for a very long time. Let me know what you think!

Asiyah x

OMG YOU’RE A LAW STUDENT!

When I meet new people and I tell them that I’m studying law they seem to think that makes me really clever or something along those lines. I guess it’s because the law seems really confusing and yes, sometimes I have to read things a million and one times before everything falls into place in my head, but I think that has a lot to do with the way we phrase things in law. If things were put in ordinary English I think most people would understand what was happening, but then I suppose there would be no need for lawyers!

I started this blog for two reasons

1. To show people that the law isn’t as difficult to understand as you may think; and
2. To share cases that I find interesting with you as I learn them

I hope you enjoy my blog and stay tuned for more!

Asiyah x