PUBLIC LAW II
MATERIAL FOR SUMMATIVE COURSEWORK
PUBLIC LAW代写 I have been asked by the UK Public Law Association to provide an advisory paper for a consultation process it is taking part in.
Email from: Maxine Harper <maxineharper@pricepriorllp.co.uk>
To: You<you@pricepriorllp.co.uk>
Subject: Advisory paper
Hello,
I have been asked by the UK Public Law Association to provide an advisory paper for a consultation process it is taking part in. I would be very grateful if you could assist me with this.
The plan is for our contribution to take the form of an answer to the following question: PUBLIC LAW代写
Has the development of the concept of the positive obligation within the ECHR, including procedural investigatory rights, diverted the protection of rights into a direction that is imposing excessive burdens on public authorities?
As I have limited time at the moment, with a number of final hearings coming up, please could you provide me with a draft for this which I can then finalise and submit? This should be in the form of a discussion paper, confined to a maximum of 2500 words (excluding referencing). We have been asked to confine our analysis of this question to articles 2, 3 and 8 of the ECHR only.
You’ll see that the topic relates to a contentious issue. It would certainly help me if you could convey your individual views on this matter, but it is always important to appreciate alternative arguments so please also try to bring in some balancing points, to the extent you feel able.
I think that the paper would work really well, if it drew on a case study. You can refer to any cases you wish throughout your paper, but I think that it would be helpful to put special emphasis on one case. I would confine this aspect of the exercise to around 1000 words.
In order to help with this aspect, I have had some preliminary thoughts about the case law and have suggested five options below. Please select one of the cases below, which you can hopefully use to contextualise your argument and to bring out and illustrate the key arguments you develop in your paper.
- Rabone v Pennine Care NHS Trust [2012] UKSC 2, [2012] 2 AC 72
- Soering v UK (1989) 11 EHRR 439
- Brecknell v UK (2008) 46 EHRR 42
- Hatton v UK (2002) 34 EHRR 1
- X and Y v Netherlands [1986] 8 EHRR 235
As part of your training, I would also like you to describe to me – in a separate document of no more than 500 words long – how you went about your research into this topic generally and specifically in relation to the case you choose. PUBLIC LAW代写
This ‘research trail’ can be done in prose or in note or bullet-point form, as long as you clearly explain the process you have carried out in your research. There is no need for you to do an additional bibliography.
Thanks again for your help,
Maxine
