I've had to alter course recently, on my tack towards the first law assignment (public law). The case I chose was from Toronto, Ontario, but because it is from extra-jurisdictional territory, a Dominion, not Great Britain (thus not a case directly related to the UK constitution), I cannot choose it. So, I've had to re-examine my pool of little landmarks: important cases, directly relevant to parliamentary sovereignty and Albert Venn Dicey (or rather Professor Mark Walters' A.V. Dicey and the Common Law Constitutional Tradition (Cambridge University Press).
Equally, reading the same text, over and over and over, is extremely helpful. You start to see angles, connections, ways in which you can answer the question in such a way that you cite case law, black-letter law and indeed academic works by legal scholars, and that answers the question directly relevant to its rubric (and marking criteria). There is a way, through the nebulous misty forest of shadowed questions, illuminated by firelight or moonlight, led by a train of fair hamadryads and faeries belonging to Diana, Artemis or Selene.
In other words, I've managed to get a handle on this whole law essay thang, which is pretty cool actually. Getting a handle on it involves reading the sources, again, and again, and making notes, and reading again. The case, however, is another matter. Now I have to choose: Entick v Carrington, or Bonham's Case, perhaps even Smith v the City of London. That last case I've had to strike off the list, as I said, because it is a Supreme Court case in Canada (although a similar, contemporary case: the Florence Mining Company v Cobalt Lake Mining Company, was brought before the Privy Council, in London, in 1911), not a UK case. Smith v City of London is a particularly curious case, but I am forced to let it go.
Settle thy studies Faustus, and begin to sound the depth of that thou wilt profess.
No comments:
Post a Comment