Essaybay stars are the easiest and quickest way to compare writers on EssayBay! The higher the rating a user gets, and the more constant that high rating is, the
more stars they will recieve, making it easy for you to see which writers turn out top quality work every time!
Note:
This total includes references and bibliography.
Deadline
18 December 2007
You Must Be Logged In To View Projects!
To view the full project, or to create projects, you must be logged in. To login as a freelancer click Here. To login as a buyer, click Here.
Description
ANSWER BOTH THE PROBLEM QUESTION AND THE ESSAY IN EQUAL PARTS.
PART A
The Big Dipper is one of the principal attractions at a funfair owned and managed by Claptout Enterprises Plc. One evening, a carriage on the ride leaves the rails in one of the deepest parts of the underground section of the track. Five people are killed as a direct result of the crash; a further twenty are unable to escape from the tunnel and die in the ensuing fire.
An inquiry into the tragedy finds that the immediate cause of the crash was the faulty maintenance of a section of the track. This maintenance was the direct responsibility of Brian who is one of a number of mechanics employed by Claptout Plc at this particular site. However, the inquiry also finds that Brian is not properly qualified to carry out his job; that the company’s procedures for supervising maintenance are inadequate; and that no proper procedures exist for evacuating the tunnel during an emergency. Six months prior to the crash an internal review had reported the inadequacy of these procedures to the Directors of Claptout Plc.. The Directors had acknowledged the contents of this report, and expressed a clear intention to remedy these problems in the next financial year, when it would be possible to finance the necessary measures without significant impact on company profits and shareholder dividends.
Advise Claptout Plc as to their possible criminal liability under the Corporate Manslaughter and Homicide Act 2007.
PART B
Evaluate whether the changes introduced by the new Act are an improvement on the previous law in cases such as this.
Please use footnotes and a fully referenced bibliography.
Writing style:
The problem question must be answered with reference only to relevant case law, i.e. as the current law stands, and the new Act.
The essay question must be answered as an academic essay with a critical evaluation of the case law history, with direct reference to the previous law on Corporate Manslaughter, and the changes and effectiveness of the new Act.
There must be a distinct difference in style between answering aproblem question and answering an essay in terms of applying the law (problem) and analysing it (essay).
Referencing style:
Standard referencing style: for example: R v. Adomako [1994] 3 All ER 79; Tesco v. Natrass [1972] AC 153; A-G's Reference (No.2 of 1999) [2000] 2 Cr. App. R. 207; Author. A, Title of Book, 1st ed., (oxford: OUP, 2007); Article Title, [1996] Crim LR 545
Essential sources:
Corporate Manslaughter and Homocide Act 2007
Requested sources:
Please refer to attached documents for suggested materials.
Other comments:
Criteria for this assignment: the application of relevant knowledge and a demonstration of intellectual comprehension; producing a clear, logical argument whose structure demonstrates a capacity for cogent reasoning and critical analysis, and whose authority is substantiated through proper referencing and citation; evidence of research skills, and an ability to evaluate and synthesize material coherently; good writing style and clarity of expression, and an appreciation of academic and judicial debate in relation to the possibilities for law reform.
EssayBay Stars
BUYERS AREA...
WRITERS AREA...
)