Paper is based on ADMINISTRATIVE LAW.
Please read all the instructions and make sure you fully understand before biding.
No plagiarism
All sources must be cited and the case law to show the application of the law in relation to the topic.
Using the PRES system, any applicable legislation and relevant recent case law (after 2015) from within Guyana and/or the wider Commonwealth Caribbean, critically advance or oppose the following position:
THE TOPIC IS : The gate-keeping functions of the court as contained within the Judicial Review Act (JRA), attempts to strike a balance between access to the courts and preventing the courts from being overburdened by applications for judicial review.
PLEASE read the following explanation of the PRES system of argument, which is expected to be used for this research. Ensure you understand it please before bidding.
The PRES system of argument, P = Position; R = Reason(s); E = Evidence; S = Summary;
With Law it applies as follows:
– Identify the Issue(s) to be resolved, and then set these out in an introduction that establishes a roadmap for your opinion;
– Take issue by itself and then analyse it using the PRES system
– Having analysed all the issues an overall conclusion can be drawn
Practical application of PRES in relation to each issue would be as follows:
My Position is that [hanging as a form of punishment by the State is wrong];
My Reason is that [the act of hanging causes more problems than it solves];
The Evidence in support includes [the 2015 Survey of Dr Spock which was conducted across Belize in 2015. Its conclusion stated that the children of persons hung by the State as punishment grew up to be bitter and vengeful adults, most of whom ended up behind prison bars for having committed violent offences];
In Summary, hanging as a form of punishment by the State serves no useful purpose and the evidence, including 2015 Survey of Dr Spock, supports that the act of hanging causes more problems than it solves.
The aim of PRES is to focus the mind and the system can be used in any argument, be it legal or non-legal. Where properly used, the argument will avoid irrelevancies and will communicate easily with the reader or listener what is intended without waffling;
Where law, in particular, is concerned, the Position adopted will be the conclusion that substance of the conclusion being made / short opinion; The Reasons(s) will be the principles of law being relied upon; the Evidence will be the facts including documents and records – based on which the conclusion is being made; and the Summary will be arrived at after a proper application of the relevant principles to the facts in issue;
More generally, every written opinion or other document should, as I tried to point out in one of my my Jurisprudence lectures, comprise three (3) essential parts An Introduction/Roadmap that identifies the critical issues and tells the reader what to look for in the body; A Body that examines the issues using a combination of inductive and deductive reasoning techniques. It should do what the Introduction/Roadmap promised; A Conclusion that confirms what was promised/required to be done in the Introduction/Roadmap has been done and which includes clear decisions ad, where appropriate, recommendations;
Keep the language simple and get to the point without waffling, being sure to address all the relevant issues.
