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

Course Work - Coursework Example Secondly, the entire summary has so many citation errors. For instance, Purdy v United Kingdom (2010) AC 45 was used instead of (on the application of Purdy) v DPP [2009] UKHL 45 [2010] AC 345. Moreover, the term article in law is supposed to be written with a capital letter. However, the summary had most of its â€Å"Articles† written in small letters. For instance, article 8 instead of Article8. Furthermore, there are interchanged words or rather statements in the text. For example, â€Å"judge Lord† is used severally in the entire summary. This is supposed to be written as â€Å"Lord Judge†; an acceptable statement. The entire summary is full of misused and confused tenses. For instance, â€Å"If you provided a defence to those who assisted someone to kill themselves then you would have to apply it to euthanasia as well as assisted suicide.† To correct this statement, one should focus on the use of words and the tenses that come along with them. Thus, t he statement should be written as â€Å"If you provide a defense to those who assisted someone to kill him or herself, then you should consider it euthanasia and assisted suicide.† The statement â€Å"European Court of human rights† is not written appropriately. It should be written as â€Å"European Court of Human Rights,† in line with the rules of law as well as grammar requirements. This text is full of grammar errors, this is just bet an example or rather a representation of the errors. Lastly, a year was not provided in a citation â€Å"Gross v Switserland and Purdy.† It should be written or rather cited as follows: Gross v Switzerland (A/30)(1979). Summary of R V Nicholson (2013) This case was brought by Nicholson together with other individuals to the Court of Appeal after the European court of Justice ruled against assisted suicide and euthanasia of which they were never satisfied with. The applicants were disadvantaged since they could not kill t hemselves. Thus, they proposed that others should kill them. However, Section 2 of the Suicide Act 2010 states that it is unlawful for persons to assist others to commit suicide and whoever assists will be charged with murder. Similarly, the FPP had provided guidance on how and when the murder assisters should be prosecuted. This advice came immediately after the case of Purdy v United Kingdom (2010). Therefore, the Court had to decide as to whether there is a defense to murder that is referred to as a necessity or not. In addition, the Court had to decide whether a cover for such cases is an interference with the Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1950 or not. This Act protects privacy of people. Lastly, the Court had to decide if the DPP is supposed to set out greater details as to how he would decide his discretion in prosecution cases of the kind. In this case, the European Court of Human Rights, in absence of the Lord Judge, declined to give a declaration that was requested for since it was not the responsibility of the Courts of Law to make decisions about this. Parliament is the only body with the powers to make such decisions. The issue was extremely controversial for the courts to deliver their rulings thus it was not a necessity. The court used the case of Bland to support their decision. Moreover, the court stated that the right to life is a fundamental according to the common law, under the European Act. There being no right to commit suicide, one will be prosecuted if he or she tries to. Furthermore, if you provide a substantial