(Due to Legal Reasons I've Changed the Title of this Post)
(... and certain contents of this page so I wont be sued for anything)
-WARNING-
items contained herein are re-enactments of what i've personally experienced. Names resembling real persons, dead or alive and names resembling institutions are purely a coincidence. they are not used as validation to this story. other "facts" that you may see in this post are for entertainment and educational purposes only.
------------------------------------------
Yesterday was my 1st day practicing as a lawyer, and I did a shit job. Well, considering the fact that I was only short of a law degree…
The case was heard in the Faculty of Law -yers
Residing judge: Chalmers J
And the defendant my client: me.
The defendant Mr. Roy See Wz was accused of breaching the codes stated within the student ordinances of University of Tasmania.
The relevant provisions in the code are: Possession of unauthorized materials in the examination room to gain advantage against other students in which the rights to do so were not granted.
The said unauthorized materials are: LAW 224 Criminal Law Synopsis
Crime: cheating.
The defendant was aware of the provisions in the student ordinances but it did not occur to him that his copy of the Criminal Law synopsis was prohibited.
The Defense: It was not the defendant’s intention, in fact it never was his intention to carry out the alleged offense. Although the defendant initially had doubts as were the synopsis was a prohibited material, the levels of stress suffered by the defendant just before a semester examination have affected his capacity to make clear judgments hence his capacity to take reasonable action such as query the validity of the synopsis, or whether the synopsis was indeed prohibited material.
As aforementioned, due to the high stress levels the defendant failed to take such preemptive measures resulting in the breach of the student ordinances.
J CHALMERS:
As a law student the defendant should have a higher level of awareness and also a higher level of sensitivity to rules, regulations and in this case- ordinances. The fact that the prohibited material was on the defendant’s desk at the time it was seized is an undeniable fact that the defendant may have relied on it to gain an un-rightful advantage in the examination over other students.
Although the defendant argued that it is not his intention to do so, the available evidences are compelling in the affirmative of the allegations.
-WARNING-
items contained herein are re-enactments of what i've personally experienced. Names resembling real persons, dead or alive and names resembling institutions are purely a coincidence. they are not used as validation to this story. other "facts" that you may see in this post are for entertainment and educational purposes only.
------------------------------------------
Yesterday was my 1st day practicing as a lawyer, and I did a shit job. Well, considering the fact that I was only short of a law degree…
The case was heard in the Faculty of Law -yers
Residing judge: Chalmers J
And the defendant my client: me.
The defendant Mr. Roy See Wz was accused of breaching the codes stated within the student ordinances of University of Tasmania.
The relevant provisions in the code are: Possession of unauthorized materials in the examination room to gain advantage against other students in which the rights to do so were not granted.
The said unauthorized materials are: LAW 224 Criminal Law Synopsis
Crime: cheating.
The defendant was aware of the provisions in the student ordinances but it did not occur to him that his copy of the Criminal Law synopsis was prohibited.
The Defense: It was not the defendant’s intention, in fact it never was his intention to carry out the alleged offense. Although the defendant initially had doubts as were the synopsis was a prohibited material, the levels of stress suffered by the defendant just before a semester examination have affected his capacity to make clear judgments hence his capacity to take reasonable action such as query the validity of the synopsis, or whether the synopsis was indeed prohibited material.
As aforementioned, due to the high stress levels the defendant failed to take such preemptive measures resulting in the breach of the student ordinances.
J CHALMERS:
As a law student the defendant should have a higher level of awareness and also a higher level of sensitivity to rules, regulations and in this case- ordinances. The fact that the prohibited material was on the defendant’s desk at the time it was seized is an undeniable fact that the defendant may have relied on it to gain an un-rightful advantage in the examination over other students.
Although the defendant argued that it is not his intention to do so, the available evidences are compelling in the affirmative of the allegations.
posted by Killl_Roy at 8:56 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home