Question 1

This question requires you to apply the knowledge of penal theories that you gained from your study of Unit 18, particularly Section 10 on confiscation orders. Before answering this question it would be helpful to revisit Activities 9 and 10 in Unit 18, and to re-read the article used as part of Activity 9: 

• Lewis, M. and Jones, R. (2014) ‘Planning, Confiscation Orders and “Criminal Lifestyle”: A Square Peg for a Round Hole?’, Journal of Planning & Environment Law, no. 9, pp. 972-78.

Your answer should begin by describing what a confiscation order is. You should briefly outline the types of offenders who can be made subject to a confiscation order and the process by which the courts decide how much money can be recovered through a confiscation order. 

The main body of your answer should then address whether or not confiscation orders are unfair to offenders. You should aim to be balanced in your consideration of the issues raised in the article, so you should discuss some advantages and some disadvantages.

Your conclusion should draw together the strands of your argument, and make clear the extent to which you agree with the quoted statement.

Guidance on structuring an answer to an essay question is given in the OU Law School Undergraduate Assessment Guide.

Question 2

You should refer to Units 14, 15 and 17 to help you answer this question. This is a problem-style question and you should structure it appropriately, using the IRAC structure that is outlined in Section 3.2.3 of the OU Law School Undergraduate Assessment Guide and Unit 10.

You should include the type of civil claim that may be available to Pradeep, what Pradeep will need to prove in order for his claim to succeed, and the standard of proof in civil cases.

You should devote most of the words in your answer to describing the types of damages that Pradeep may be awarded if his claim is successful and explaining why each applies to him.

You should not attempt to decide whether Pradeep’s claim will succeed, nor should you try to quantify the damages that he may be awarded. 

You should not use any materials other than W101 units when you are preparing your answer to this question.

Question 3

You should refer to Unit 15, particularly Sections 2.1, 4.1, 4.4, 7.1 and 7.3.2, to help you to answer this question. This is an essay question, and you should structure it appropriately.

Your answer should start by explaining the general rule on who bears the legal burden of proof in criminal cases. Next, you should give an overview of what is meant by a reverse burden of proof and explain how this is an exception to the general rule. When explaining what is meant by a reverse burden of proof you should make sure that you provide one example.

Question 4

This question is in three parts. You should use about 60 words for Part (a), 60 words for Part (b), and 80 words for Part (c). 

These questions are designed to help you reflect upon your learning. There is no single ‘correct’ answer; you should respond carefully and truthfully based upon your own experiences. It is important to acknowledge difficulties and weaknesses as well as achievements and strengths. 

The purpose of Part (a) is to encourage you to reflect on your feelings at the start of the module and to give you a chance to appreciate how you have developed. You should clearly and honestly outline how you felt at the start of the module; your answer might include mixed feelings (good and bad). Next, you should explain one way in which you feel differently about your studies now. Be specific in your answer.

For Part (b), you should identify three resources provided by the OU. These should be as specific as possible (for example, ‘the OU Law School Undergraduate Assessment Guide’ is not an appropriate answer, but reference to a specific section of it may be). You should briefly explain why each source was useful to you.

For Part (c) if you have a job, or are hoping to find one at any time in the future, you should clearly explain why the skill is useful in the kind of work that you do or hope to do. If you do not have a job, and do not plan to look for one, you should clearly explain how the skill will be relevant to something else that you plan to do in the future. This could be a domestic project, a personal goal, or any other aspect of your life (except study). You will be awarded one mark if you clearly identify a skill, and up to three marks if you give a clear and specific explanation of its potential usefulness.

Get expert help for OU Law School Undergraduate and many more. 24X7 help, plag free solution. Order online now!