rickmatt wrote: » Constitutional March 2020 Questions anyone????
CoconutHeadMia wrote: » Are people covering detention? Find the judges rules and statutory regulations difficult
Buttonbean123 wrote: » Is there much to cover under the Criminsl Justice (Sexual Offences) Act 2017 given that it’s relatively new? Do people have much to write on this?
FE1new wrote: » Main ones are: s.16 Offence to engage or attempt to engage in a sexual act with a child under 15 Not a defence to say they were consenting However, can say mistakingly thought they were 15 Case PG v. Ireland & Ors 13 year old. Punishment Life s.17 A person who engages in a sexual act with a child who is under the age of 17 years shall be guilty of an offence Consent no defence unless : If between 15 & 17 & consenting, If not more than 2 years older & not a person in authority & no intimidatory or exploitative relationship. Case - DPP v Tulie (2016) Court of Appeal – was a person in authority at the time he met the 16 year old, but at the time of offences was no longer teaching her, so was no longer a person in authority. NOTE : If this had been after the 2017 Act, he would have been convicted as a person in authority is someone who is or has been responsible for the child’s teaching or education. Punishment: 7 years or 15 years if person in authority s.21 A person who engages in a sexual act with a protected person knowing that that person is a protected person or being reckless as to whether that person is a protected person shall be guilty of an offence A protected person is one whose capacity to consent is limited It is an offence to invite, induce, counsel or incite a protected person to engage in a sexual act Requires DPP consent Punishment: Life (or up to 14 years if sexual assault) 10 years s.22 A person in authority who engages in a sexual act with a relevant person shall be guilty of an offence A relevant person is one who has a mental or intellectual disability or a mental illness ‘which is of such nature as to severely restrict the ability of the person to guard himself or herself against serious exploitation’. Consent is no defence. Honest belief that the person wasn’t mentally or intellectually disabled is a defence (but hard to prove) Requires DPP consent Punishment : 10 years (or 5 years if sexual assault)
Lelila wrote: » DM me your email address & I'll send you a copy of the paper.
superS wrote: » Can I get a copy as well?
stav wrote: » Can anyone confirm what the legislation checks are like at the beginning of the exam? Are you asked to flick through them and show your workspace? I'm using a laptop with a webcam attached, so showing my workspace might be hard. I'm stressing that I won't do it effectively and don't want to get flagged for no reason! Thanks a million in advance for your help
Iso_123 wrote: » property question on co ownership I was wondering if someone could help me out with a question on severance of a joint tenancy because i've completely confused myself.. Where one joint tenant acquires another one of the joint tenants interest (lets say there were 3 joint tenants to begin with but now that one has acquired another's interest there are only 2 left) - does this sever the joint tenancy and now the remaining 2 are tenants in common? or are they still joint tenants? I'm confused because my manual seems to contradict itself or I might just be reading it wrong..
Aoibhin511 wrote: » In that situation where you have 3 co-owners and one acquires an extra interest, that person is a TIC in relation to the other 2, but the other two still have are still JT to each other. Same goes if person 1 sell to someone else, the new buyer is a TIC but the others remain JT in relation to each other.
Iso_123 wrote: » Thanks for this! but if there was only 3 to begin with and 1 acquires another's interest so now there's only 2 left.. does this change anything? will the 2 remaining be tenants in common now because some of the unities are gone? or will the 2 remaining still be joint tenants?
orlaghs wrote: » I think the remaining JT become TIC because the unity of interest is destroyed! That's my understanding of it anyways
ann1994 wrote: » Hi, does anyone else who has done exams this week feel their typed answers look short? I found it very hard to judge with no word count or pages to gauge if I have enough typed.
Aoibhin511 wrote: » If there there were more than two JT, then only the severed tenant becomes a TIC, with the others continuing to be JT with regards to their share of the property (66% in the case of 3 original JT) See Wright v Gibbons Obviously if there are only two joint-tenants to start with and one severs then they must both become TIC since the non-severing party has no one to be JT with.
bluerthanu wrote: » I think that would only apply to an inter vivos alienation to a third party or if there were more than 3 tenants? If we’re going off of the original posters question, which, as I understand it, was 3 original JT’s but one of the JT’s acquires a further interest, then only two co-owners remain? My understanding is that you would then have a severance of TIC of 66% to the acquiring interest co-owner, and 33% to the remaining JT now TIC.
FE1Rookie wrote: » So we can "log in" any time after 8.15am and no later than 9.30am. Does it matter if you log in a few minutes before 9.30am? Or has that affected some people being locked out or unable to view things because it's loading for ages? Just wondering what experience people have had and what they recommend to do? Because I am not a morning person and 9.25am would suit me best instead of pacing around from 8.15am until the 10am start.
