RELIGION LAW AND SOCIETY

Instructions and Marking Criteria

 

 

Content: Please discuss the significance of the case for Law and Religion. Please refer to journal articles, newspaper articles, books and cases etc. Within the case note particular emphasis should be placed on the ratio of the case and how it impacts the field in general. Please focus on legal reasoning and legal analysis and critically analyse the decision made in the case by using different journals and articles.

 

 

Assessment criteria

 

 

·               To critically assess the legal protection of religion and analyse current religion legal issues

·               To engage in a discourse on freedoms (with particular emphasis on religion) To promote an analysis of religion in its wider social and legal context

·               To critically evaluate the legal frameworks for the protection of religion and expression.

·               To develop legal research skills and analysis of primary sources and promote skills of critical analysis.

·               A systematic and deep understanding of the specialist legal principles and concepts that arise.

·               The ability to recognise problems and synthesise ideas and information to develop novel solutions.

·               A developed research strategy that involves the evaluation and critical analysis of a range of authoritative, novel and reliable materials.

·               The proactive application of a range of interpersonal and communication skills in a range of situations with degrees of complexity.

·               Include relevant information and demonstrate an understanding of the topic.

·               Ensure a clear argument is presented, supported by interesting/relevant examples

·               Please ensure the arguments are supported by a strong research base

·               Please ensure there is a high level of contextual analysis

·               Knowledge and understanding of the relevant law

·               Evidence of research and analysis

·               Ability to support arguments with appropriate evidence

·               Articulately material in clear and jargon free language, with introductions and conclusion, plan

 

Eweida and Others v. The United Kingdom, (Applications nos. 48420/10, 59842/10, 51671/10 and 36516/10) ECHR Judgment 15 January 2013

 

1.    Please discuss the case and the other cases involved and focus on the fact that Eweida’s case wins and the others don’t. Please study carefully the court’s ratio in order to understand why this is so. Comparisons between the cases will help a lot. Please discuss all four cases in a non-linear way and with more focus on Eweida’s case.

 

2.    Please ensure you use journals, books and articles to critically analyse and complete the below. The piece does not have to be referenced but please include a bibliography with all the books, journals, cases and articles used. Please throughout the work state for example; “as stated in Bob’s article on XXX” and this is how you can portray you have done your research etc.

 

3.    Please ensure you read the “instructions and marking criteria” document before starting this piece of work.

 

 

Please follow the template below, this has no word limit.

 

1.             Case name: Eweida and Others v. The United Kingdom, (Applications nos. 48420/10, 59842/10, 51671/10 and 36516/10) ECHR Judgment 15 January 2013

 

2.             Law Reports Citation:  

 

3.             Level of Court:

 

4.             Judgment Date:

 

5.             Judge(s) who heard the Case:

 

6.             Procedural History (has the case been heard in a lower court?  If so what was the finding and why?):

 

7.             Summary of the facts leading up to the case being brought (very brief):

 

8.             Decision in the case (who won?):

 

9.             Ratio/ Legal reason for the decision (this is the most important section): 

 

10.          What is the significance of the case for Law and Religion? (Please support your answer with evidence from the case. This can be from the minority opinion for instance.)   

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-GB
X-NONE
X-NONE

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
mso-para-margin-right:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:8.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
line-height:107%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:”Calibri”,sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}

 

 

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-GB
X-NONE
X-NONE

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0cm;
mso-para-margin-right:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:8.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0cm;
line-height:107%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:”Calibri”,sans-serif;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-language:EN-US;}