You are using the case of R v Robert Solomon (as set out in problem one) and you are approaching the problem as the defence. You need to argue that RS should get a Vye direction at the end of the trial. 

The facts: For this assessment ONLY you are asked to imagine that RS’s bad character consists only of the two convictions below. Ignore the evidence of Lyndsey Kee. 

The coursework should consider whether, at the end of any trial, Robert Solomon should receive a Vye direction from the judge in her summing up to the jury. As you are approaching this from the defence position, you should be trying to find arguments to support him having this direction. 

Your 1000 word assessment should therefore demonstrate the following: 

• That you know what a Vye direction is. 
• That you have correctly identified the key issue(s) in relation to RS having a Vye direction. 
• That you can research and summarise concisely and accurately the law relevant to resolving the issue(s). 
• How the relevant law may be applied to the facts to build persuasive arguments that RS should have a Vye direction. 
• Very briefly – what you see as your strongest argument and what you see as your biggest problem in arguing successfully that RS should have a Vye direction. 

While you are approaching this from the defence point of view, you are not expected or encouraged to write the coursework as a script for a submission to the judge.

Click here to request for this assignment help

Place New Order
It's Free, Fast & Safe

"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Order now and Get a Discount!