With the nasty little year it’s been for me, I never got to sit my Summer exams, so had to do the repeats, which were on this week. 3 in total. Property Law on Monday. Yesterday Criminal Law had a question on rape and offered a scenario with a male to female transgendered person with a “Surgically constructed vagina”. The question asked whether she could have been raped. It had lots of other elements in it too like consensual S&M etc. Fun. Today was Tort or “How to sue the shit out of someone”. I seemed to really know the defamation law section of this. Funny that. Anyway, all done and I should get through to 3rd year law. Will I promise to be a good boy next term and study and not skip lectures and that? Come back in 12 months and see.
Now back to living life.
Congrats on surviving the exams. You can get back to what you are best at – ranting 😀
Aha! Mystery solved. When I saw you mentioning it on Facebook yesterday I was quite confused indeed.
Anyway congratulations at finishing the exams and I hope they all went well.
what kind of crazy sex college to you go to dude?
Mmm, sex college.
First case I did in criminal law (yikes, seven years ago) was R v Brown. On consensual S&M (complete with old grey judges discussing different, um, methods) and the law. Gulp.
Hope you get good results from these exams anyway 😉
haha
(haha to Damien, not to Daithi) although,,,,
Richard Hearne is going to be around in a minute claiming this is another Google SEO scam for traffic. 🙂
DaithÃÂ, yes, I went into great detail about Brown and made some logical leaps of my own to.
Ahhhh the heady days of Criminal Law.
One case sticks in my mind: Derry v Peek – the defendant being a man who got very drunk, stole a red bike on his way home, woke up sober with said bike (nothing sexual, mind) got worried and tried to post it back whence he stole it.
It had a particular resonance with me because the weekend before we studied the case I got very drunk, stole a red bike on the way home, and woke up with said red bike in my back garden.
We’ve all done it.
I fretted for a while, got EXTREMELY paranoid when reading about Derry v Peek, but instead of posting a bike anywhere, I gave the bike to a friend who then chopped it up with an axe and set it down to rust at the end of his garden.
True or false? Well, that’s a matter for the courts to decide…..
Congrats on finishing the exams, Damo.
I though this was Derry v. Peek …
Fraudulent misrepresentation was defined by Lord Herschell in Derry v Peek (1889) as a false statement that is “made (i) knowingly, or (ii) without belief in its truth, or (iii) recklessly, careless as to whether it be true or false.” Therefore, if someone makes a statement which they honestly believe is true, then it cannot be fraudulent. See:
Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337.
PS: I think that could be answered as ‘Section 4’ rape or indeed Section 2 of 1981.