Course Work 1 Coursework Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Course Work 1 - Coursework Example The introduction needs to be more specific, using apt legal terminology, and stating the facts of the case clearly. Besides, the introduction should also have identified the terms of reference of the court, or the basic point at dispute in the court, right at the beginning of the summary and not in the second body passage. In many places, the summary lacks clarity due to spelling errors or failing to follow the appropriate norms of writing. For example, â€Å"whether† is spelt in the second paragraph as â€Å"weather† and the name Pretty has not been capitalised, thus creating a misunderstanding in the readers that the word is used in the sense of an adjective rather than as a name. The summary also fails to use the exact legal terminology while referring to several of the legal aspects of the case. For instance, the term â€Å"blanket prohibition on euthanasia and assisted suicide† has often been referred to as merely â€Å"blanket† that confuses the read ers. In addition, the summary also flouts many conventions of professional writing and on occasions relegates itself to the level of an informal talk. The use of contractions and second person POV are some examples of this. The summary calls for a revision, and rewriting, by meticulously following the usual conventions for writing professional legal summaries. It needs to be outlined properly and structured logically by organising it in an appropriate sequence. The writer also needs to be specific and use proper legal jargons rather than writing in layman language. This will render the text a better flow and cohesiveness apart from clearly communicating the ideas of the writer to the audience. Rewritten Summary: An appeal was filed by Nicklinson & others in the Divisional Court against a decision of the European Court of Justice, naming the Director of Public Prosecution (DPP) as prime respondent. The terms of reference for the court were: (1) to determine whether necessity constitu tes a sufficient reason as defence against prosecution in the case of euthanasia or assisted suicide, (2) whether prohibition of assisted suicide constitutes a disproportionate interference with Art 8 of ECHR 1950, and (3) whether there is a necessity for DPP to clearly set out the circumstances under which prosecution will be initiated in cases of assisted suicide to make the law more transparent to healthcare professionals. The appellants, terminally suffering and crucially disabled, did not want to continue their lives but could not self-terminate. Thus, they wanted to seek medical assistance to kill themselves. With the above terms of references and using precedence in such cases, the court held that the case could not be ruled in the appellant’s (L) favour because such a decision would violate the sanctity of life as envisaged in Article 2. The court further held that it is unlawful under Sec 2 of the Suicide Act 2010 and if any person assists another in euthanasia or su icide, he or she will have to be prosecuted for homicide. Further, on the issue of whether necessity constitutes and defence against prosecution in the case of assisted suicide, as in the case of Purdy Vs United Kingdom (2010) AC 45, the court ruled that the blanket prohibition on euthanasia or assisted suicide cannot be construed as disproportionate interference with Article 8 of ECHR 1950, which protects the privacy of a citizen. The court further