|Term 2 Coursework 2017-18
BFL0001 Constitutional and Administrative Law
This coursework is designed to assess the following learning outcomes:
· your ability to identify and analyse key elements of a law problem,
· your ability to research legal issues,
· your ability to provide solutions and remedies to legal problems,
· your ability to explain legal principles in a clear and precise way,
· your ability to apply legal principles to a legal problem,
· your ability to use paper and electronic sources to access relevant legal source materials,
· your ability to reference using the OSCOLA style.
· Use of OSCOLA referencing
COURSEWORK: Judicial Review and Police Powers
|2500. You should aim to write a maximum of 1,250 words for each questionThe limit excludes the bibliography or reference list, footnotes, appendices and details of the assessment task.
The penalty for exceeding the word limit is set out in your Course Handbook on Unilearn.
|25th April 2018
|Please check information issued for submission of all courseworks this year.
|· Failure to comply with the word limit WILL result in the application of the standard penalty (details in your Course Handbook on Unilearn).· Unless notified otherwise your work MUST be handed in via Turnitin NO LATER than 23:59 on the submission date. It is the student’s responsibility to comply with this requirement.
· Attention is drawn to the rules on academic misconduct (including unattributed citations from textbooks etc).
· Refer to your Course Handbook for the penalties for non-compliance.
Title of coursework: Judicial Review and Police Powers
Submission Date: 25th April 2018
Answer both questions
- The (fictitious) Electric Cars Act 2010, provides as follows:
S1(1) The Minister for Transport may make grants to any business he thinks fit which produce products related to the construction and marketing of electric cars,
(2) The grant is to help reduce the costs of manufacturing and/or selling electric cars in the UK.
(3) Grants must not exceed £50,000 and shall not be less than £5,000.
The Minister has developed a policy, which is published on the website and in promotional literature, that she will, ‘only consider grants to businesses that have demonstrated a long term commitment to developing products aimed at reducing the cost of constructing and manufacturing electric cars, and have demonstrated a good environmental record, which is the aim and objective of the Electric Cars Act 2010’.
The Minister has an annual budget of £5m to use on such grants
Car Turbine ltd is a business that has been developing electric cars for over 10 years for the UK domestic market. It has an excellent reputation within the car industry of producing efficient electric cars. However, as a small company it needs a grant to improve the marketing department in order to meet the growing UK demand for electric cars. The grant is to be used towards developing a new marketing strategy, and train a new marketing team to increase UK sales. By improving the marketing and thereby increase sales, the company believes it will be able to reduce the production costs and increase the efficiency of electric cars, through the added research and development it will be able to afford.
Being confident that the company meets the criteria for a grant they contacted the Ministry about applying for a grant. They were told there should not be any problems with an application which was likely to be favourably considered. However, after their application was submitted they received a letter stating, ‘Your application will not be considered’. No reasons for this were given.
AB Motors plc, a multinational company with a poor environmental record and who have so far refused to consider developing electric cars, was successful in its application for a grant ‘to a develop a new electric car with global potential’, a brand new enterprise for the company. The company has no experience of the electric car industry but now wishes to break into the market as it see a short term opportunity to make money quickly and develop its international reputation and sales.
The Ministry for the Environment recently stated on its web site that ‘only businesses who were members of ‘The London Car Development Group’, a large lobby group for car manufacturers of which AB Motors plc is a member, would be considered for grants.
Advise Car Turbine ltd, who is not a member of ‘The UK London Car Development Group’, and wishes to challenge the refusal of their application and the making of a grant to AB Motors plc.
- As PC Holroyd was investigating a theft, during which a number of watches were stolen, he saw David leaving the Three Kings public house. PC Holroyd knew David and was aware of his previous convictions for theft. PC Holroyd stopped David and asked him what he knew about the theft and the watches. David said he knew nothing about any theft or any watches.
PC Holroyd told David that he did not believe him and informed David that he was going to search him to check for the stolen watches. David told PC Holroyd that he objected to being searched, and that there was no reason for him to be searched. Despite David’s objection, PC Holroyd searched David, who continued verbally to object to being searched, but offered no physical resistance.
The search revealed no stolen items. PC Holroyd told David that he still did not believe that he knew nothing about the theft so he arrested David and took him to the police station. On the journey PC Holroyd continued to question David about the thefts.
David was detained in the police station for 14 hours, during which time he made a number of requests to telephone a solicitor, all of which were refused. He also made a number of requests to telephone his wife because he wanted to let her know that he was safe. These requests were also refused.
During his detention, David was questioned for 8 hours without a break, during which time he was given no refreshments. David eventually admitted to having stolen the watches after he was promised he would be able to telephone his wife and be released on bail if he confessed. David was charged with theft and released on police bail.
David now denies having stolen the watches.
Advise David on the legality of the actions of the police and on the admissibility of the confession at any subsequent trial.
Write a 1,400-word minimum internal environmental analysis in which you include the following:
- Assess the organization’s internal environment. (Apple Inc.)
- Identify the most important strengths and weaknesses of your organization including an assessment of the organization’s resources.
- Identify the most important internal environmental factors in the general, industry, and external analysis in relation to the internal analysis.
- Perform competitor analysis.
- Assess the structure of the organization and the influence this has on its performance.
- Determine the organization’s competitive position and the possibilities this provides.
This assignment is to be written on Apple Inc.