L3 SUMMARY TEXT 7 p. 27.

MB (Appellant) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Respondent) (2016)

The Appellant in this case is transgender who after having been registered as a man at birth underwent gender reassignment in 1995 (to become a woman). 

In 2008, as she turned 60, the appellant thus applied for state pension to which she was entitled as a woman born before 1950. This pension, however, was denied to her on the grounds that she was not legally recognised as a woman. 

Indeed, in accordance with / pursuant to the Gender Recognition Act (Section 5, paragraph 7) (2004), (also “the Gender Recognition Act provides that”) eligibility to state retirement pension is to be determined as if the person’s acquired gender had always been their gender on condition that they have a full gender recognition certificate. 

This was not the case of the Appellant who, prior to undergoing gender reassignment surgery, had married as a man and who, on account of her marital status was only entitled to an interim Gender but not a full Reassignment certificate. 

The gender of the appellant is of significant / paramount importance as Directive 97/7 EEC aims to prevent against discrimination “on ground of sex either directly or indirectly by reference to marital or family status” but also allows member states to opt out of the scope of the directive concerning the determination of pensionable age. 

The existence of a specific pensionable age for men and women in the UK does not contravene the Directive. However, the Appellant challenges the notion that UK law imposes requirements other than social and physical criteria to determine whether an individual is a man or a woman. 

Due to / On account of a lack of direct authority from the CJEU, the Supreme Court decided to refer the case to the CJEU to determine if the directive forbids the imposition in National Law of extra requirement (such as marital status) other than physical or social criteria for recognising a change of gender. 

Transgender: Adj. 

VOCABULARY L3 TERM 2

VOCABULARY TERM 2

WEEK 4

Text 3, p. 52-53

Alice K., Adam D. (G. 16)

Servile (adj.) : Having or showing an excessive willingness to serve or please others.

—Caste (n.) : Each of the hereditary classes of Hindu society, distinguished by relative degrees of ritual purity or pollution and of social status.

—Landmark (n.) : An event or discovery marking an important stage or turning point in something.

—Root (n.) : Denoting or relating to something from a particular ethnic or cultural origin

—To be ill-treat (v.) : Act cruelly towards (a person or animal)

—Foam mattress (n.) : A mattress made from rubber or plastic solidified in a lightweight cellular mass.

—To harass (v) : Subject to aggressive pressure or intimidation.

—To inherit something (v.) : Derive (a quality, characteristic, or predisposition) genetically from one's parents or ancestors.

—Merely (adv.) : simply, only  

—Aware (adj.) : Having knowledge or perception of a situation or fact.

—Adivasi caste (n.) : members  of any of the aboriginal tribal peoples living in India before the arrival of the Aryans in the second millennium BC.

—Skill (n.) : The ability to do something well

—To obtain a redress (v.) : Remedy or set right (an undesirable or unfair situation)

A row (n.) : an argument 

To confront (v.) : To report 

A stance (n.) : an intellectual or legal position 

WEEK 3

Smith v. MoD
 Selim D.,  Thibault-Amaury D. (G 16)

• Friendly fire, (n.): Shots from own camp
• Negligence, (n.): Lack of due care
• Servicemen, (n.): Soldiers
• Breach a rule (v.): Violation of a set of rules
• Struck out (adj.): Crossed through
• Preventive (adj): Precautionary
• Duty of care : Responsibility or legal obligation for someone to avoid acts or omissions that could bring harm to others
• Deceased, (adj.): Dead person
• Allegations, (n.): Accusation
• Within the scope of…:  In the range of…
• Combat immunity: A common law doctrine which excludes civil liability for negligence and deliberate damage to property or person committed by the armed forces.

Smith v. MoD  

Maxime B, Victoire R.  (G 17)

Allegation (n.) : A claim that someone has done something wrong/illegal

Arise (v.) : To emerge, become apparent

Arise from/out of (v.) : To get up from something / To be caused by something

Breach (n.) : An act of violating a law

Breach (v): Break or violate a law

Claim (n.) : A request or demand for something considered one’s due / A right to something

Claim (v.) : Formally request or demand for something considered one’s due

Dissent (n.) : To differ in sentiment or opinion from the majority 

Improvised (adj.): Done or made using whatever is makeshift

Involve (v.) : To affect or have a necessary consequence / to embroil, engage

Injury (n.) : Damage done to a person or a thing / Damage suffered by a person or a thing

Liability (n.) : The state of being responsible for something towards the laws

Negligence (n.) : Failure to take care over something 

Purpose (n.) : The reason for which something is done, a determination

Purpose (v.) : To intend or resolve a goal

Require (v.) : Need for a particular purpose

Scope (n.) : The range, the extent of subject matter to which it is relevant

Strike out / Struck out (v.) : to remove something / declare invalid 

Towards  (pr.): In the direction of

Trial (n.): A formal examination of evidence by a judge in a case of civil or criminal proceedings

Unanimously (adv.): With the agreement of all people involved

Melodie D. and Camille C. (G. 54)

Vocabulary oral presentation – Smith and Others v. The Ministry of Defence, 

June 19^th 2013 (UK Supreme Court)

• Serviceman : a member of the armed forces of a country. 
• « Friendly fire » incident : an attack by a military force on non-enemy, own, allied or neutral, forces while attempting to attack the enemy, either by misidentifying the target as hostile, or due to errors or inaccuracy.
• To allege : to assert, to declare 
• Improvised explosive device : a home-made explosive device designed to maim, harass, or kill
• To strike out :  you apply to ask the court to strike out your opponent's claim if you consider it is "vexatious" (mischief making), "scurrilous" (insulting), or "ill-founded" (wrong). This will mean the claim will not proceed.
• To owe : to be in debt to 
• Doctrine of combat immunity : provides that when the armed forces are in the course of military operations, they are under no actionable duty of care in tort to avoid causing loss or damage to their fellow soldiers, or indeed to anyone else.
• A deceased : someone who died 

WEEK 2 

The Law Explored : naked and unarmed – but shot dead by mistake  

Vocabulary (GROUP 16):

- a set of rules = to gather several rules

• broad (adj) = extensive, varied, large
  - crackdown (n) = punishment
  - to raid {sth} (v) = to attack, to assault
  - to try {sth/sb} (v) = to judge
  - mistaken (n) = inexact, confused
  - liability (n) = legal responsability for acts
  - to push ahead (v) = to go on, to continue
  - assault and battery (n) = crime, direct physical assault (coups et blessures)
  - vindicatory action = to claim for oneself or another
  - to infringe (v) = to violate
  - mere (adj) = just, no more than
  - requirements (n) = needs
  - behaviour (n) = conduct of a person
  - to acknowledge (v) = to admit, to accept as true
  -  tort (n) = damage, injury
  - odd (adj) = unusual, weird
  - to settle (v) = to resolve
  - thoughtful (adj) = rational, result of thought
  - to ossify (v) = to become rigid
  - a quarry (n) = an open pit
  - constable (n) = police officer

Vocabulary (GROUP 17):

Criminal law (n.) : the part of the legal system that relates to punishing people who break the law.

Civil law (n.) : the part of the legal system that relates to personal matters, such as marriage and property, rather than crime.

Self-defence (n.) (u.) : a claim or plea that the use of force or injuring or killing another was necessary in defending one's own person from physical attack.

A crackdown (n.) : a situation in which officials begin to strictly enforce rules or laws.

A Chief Constable (n.) : in Britain, the police officer in charge of the police in a particul area.

The Old Bailey : the main criminal court of London, England.

Naked (adj.) : wearing no clothing.

Unarmed (adj.) : not carrying a weapon.

Honest (adj.) : truthful and sincere.

Reasonable (adj.) : based on or using good judgment and therefore fair and practical / acceptable.

Mistakenly (adj.) : (of an idea or action) wrong or incorrect.

Unlawful (adj.) : not allowed by law.

To push ahead : to continue with an activity in a determined or enthusiastic way, especially when it is difficult or makes you feel tired.

To plead (v.) : to make a request for something.

A requirement (n.) : something that you must do, or something you need.

An Assault and battery (n.) : a threat to injure someone followed by a violent attack on them.

An Assault (n.) : a violent attack.

To raid (v.) : (of the police) to enter a place suddenly in order to find someone or something

MB v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions

Vocabulary (GROUP 54)

• Referral (in the european system) : A question of interpretation or validity of a european provision raised by the national judge and sent to the european judge.
• The acquired gender : The gender under which you are registered after a gender reassignment.
• State retirement pension : An amount of money given by the state that one receives at a certain age, after quitting his/her job.
• Gender reassignment : Sex transformation.
• To be eligible to : To be suitable / to satisfy the criteria.
• Eligibility : The entitlement to something, to have the quality to access to something.
• To undergo surgery : To receive a surgical intervention.
• Marital status : Whether or not one is married.
• To preclude : to exclude (here the application of a legal disposition).
• To enter into force : To become applicable.
• Entitlement : The right, the privilege.
• Interim gender recognition : A gender recognition which is not total but temporary.
• The Panel : When not all the Justices hear the case/Only a portion of Justices hear the case.
• Requirement : A need, a condition.
• To amend : To correct, modify.
• To acquire : To obtain.
• Guidance : Advice, assistance (of the judges).

VOCABULARY TERM 1 (UPDATED) 

L3 Group 54

XIAOHERETI Y. / YESMINE B.

gurney (n.) : a light bed on wheels, used to move patients in a hospital penitentiary (n.) : a state or federal prison 

prolific (adj.) : producing a great number or amount of something 

brand of (n.) : a particular type of something, or way of doing something 

to enact (v.) : to put something into action, especially to make something law 

logistical (adj.) : relating to the process of planning and organizing to make sure that resources are in the places where they are needed, so that an activity or process happens effectively 

to carry out something (v.) : to do or complete something, especially that you have said you would do or that you have been told to do 

to underline (v.) : to emphasize 

wares (n.) : small products for selling, especially in a market or on the street 

to bolster (v.) : to support or improve something or make it stronger 

stance (n.) : a way of thinking about something, especially expressed in a publicly stated opinion 

scrambling (adj.) : putting things in the wrong order so that they do not make sense (like scram- bling eggs) 

delighted (adj.) : very pleased
substantial (adj.) : large in size, value, or importance
to resort to something (v.) : to do or use something because it is the only thing available
to replenish (v.) : to fill something up again
aided by (adj.) : helped by
lethal (adj.) : deadly, which causes death
shady (adj.) : - informal - way to express that something is illegal or dishonest
to cloak (v.) : to hide something
secrecy (n.) : the state of being secret or of keeping something secret
compounding (adj.) : - formal - formal something consisting of two or more different parts bespoke (adj.) : specially made for a particular person, tailor-made
manufacturer (n.) : a company that produces goods in large numbers
to look to somebody to make something (v.) : to hope that someone will do something for you 

to urge somebody to (v.) : to encourage someone to do or achieve something significant (adj.) : important or noticeable
to contend (v.) : to say that something is true or is a fact
overblown (adj.) : bigger or more important or impressive than it should be 

to carry out the law (v.) : to keep applying the law
tremendous (adj.) : very great in amount or level, or extremely good / synonyms : gigantic, huge

to put somebody to death (v.) : condemning to death 

to comport with (v.) : if an idea or statement, etc. comports, it matches or is similar to something else 

botched (adj.) : used to describe something, usually a job, that is done badly
spokesman (n.) : someone who is chosen by a group or organization to speak officially to the public for them (ex : a government spokesperson) 

blow (n.) : a hard hit with a hand or a weapon 

to sting (v.) : if someone's unkind remarks sting, they make you feel upset and annoyed 

to strike down (v.) : (of a court) to decide that a law or rule is illegal and should be ignored 

polls (n.) : survey of opinion, statistics 

to wage war against something/somebody (v.) or to wage war on something (drugs, crime) : to fight a battle or to conduct a campaign against something 

prosecutor (v.) : a legal official who accuses someone of committing a crime, especially in a law court 

to seek (v.) : to try to find or get something, especially something that is not a physical object death row (n.) : cellblock for prisoners sentenced to death, waiting to be killed as a punishment for 

a crime
populous (adj.) : country, area, or place which has a lot of people living in it on hold (adv.) : suspended, that is waiting for something/somebody nationwide (adj.) : existing or happening in all parts of a particular country tally (v.) : to match or agree with something else
to gauge (v.) : to calculate an amount, especially by using a measuring device 

backup (n.) : someone or something providing support or help, or something that you have arran- ged in case your main plans go wrong which is why we usually say « a backup plan » 

shipment (n.) : a large amount of goods sent together to a place, or the act of sending them
to dispatch (v.) : to send something, especially goods or messages, somewhere for a particular purpose
shortage (n.) : a situation in which there is not enough of something
lengthy slate : - mostly US - a long list of candidates
wholesaler (n.) : so who buys and sells goods in large amounts to shops and businesses to allege (v.) : to say that someone has done something illegal or wrong without giving proof inmate (n.) : a prisoner
chamber (n.) : a room used for a special or official purpose 

field (n.) : 1. an area of activity or interest
2. an area of land, used for growing crops or keeping animals, usually surrounded by a fence 3. an area covered with grass, used for playing sports 

myriad problems (n.) : many problems, almost infinite
dubious (adj.) : thought not to be completely true or not able to be trusted to ensure (v.) : to make certain that something will happen, to make sure 

DUILLI K. / CAMILLE C. (Group 54)

A cudgel : a short stout stick used as a weapon
Death row inmate : someone who is sentenced to death and waits for his execution
Emphatic : very expressive or significant
Faith-based : affiliated with, supported by
A freshman : a novice, a beginner
GOP : other name for the Republican Party in the U.S.
A live band : a musical group which plays in live
Markedly : a change in behaviour or in a situation which is very obvious or noticeable
To acknowledge : to admit truth or reality of something
To depict : to describe
To be hammered : to be hit, to be beaten
To launch : to initiate, to begin
To point to : to indicate
To shift : to switch, to change
To top out : to peak, to culminate
To reignite : to make something such as a disagreement or worry that was disappearing grow stronger To wrangle : to argue
Capital punishment (uncountable), the death penalty 

VOCABULARY OF THE PRESENTATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT

L3 GROUP 17

Joanna Z.

Ona P-P.

A ruling (n) : a decision

To invoke (v)  : to declare to be binding or in effect

Evidence / to evidence (n) ; (v) : that which tends to prove or disprove something

Horrendous (adj) : shockingly dreadful

To injure (v): to do or cause harm of any kind to

A prosecutor (n) : an attorney who conducts legal proceedings against a person, as in a court of law

Callous (adj) : unkind, cruel, and without sympathy or feeling for other people (unfeeling ; insensitive)

Likewise (adv) : in the same way

To convict (v) : to prove or declare (someone) guilty of an offense, especialy after a legal trial

Manslaughter (n) : the unlawful killing of a human being in which there is no prior intent to kill

Reckless (adj) : utterly unconcerned about the consequences of some action

To appal (v): to make someone have strong feelings of shock or of disapproval

To caution (v) : to give a warning 

An appeal (n) : an application or request for review by a higher court

To appeal (v) : to apply for review of a case or particular issue to a higher tribunal

A limb (n): arm or leg

 “Miranda rights or warnings”:  is a right to silence warning given by police in the United States to criminal suspects in police custody (or in a custodial interrogation) before they are interrogated to preserve the admissibility of their statements against them in criminal proceedings. 

L3 HOMEWORK for WEEK 3

Homework for Week 3:

ALL GROUPS: 

UNIT 2 (booklet): study the vocabulary (p.39-40)

UNIT 3, CIVIL COURTS: study the introduction (booklet + Glossaire de droit anglais) + vocabulary (end of the unit)

Prepare text 9 p. 31-32 (answer questions p. 32 "Definitions", "Comprehension")

+

G 16 and G 17: Ex. 1 p. 39. 

G 54: Finish answering the questions related to the Listening Comprehension exercise n° 8 p. 38: STORMTROOPERS, started in class. 

You may still turn in the summary of the case discussed in class (Text n° 7).

Presentation topic for Week 3: G 16, G 17, G 54

L3: HOMEWORK for WEEK 2 (semester 2)

For week 2: 

Homework for all groups: 

Ex 1 p. 3 sentence completion

Vocabulary Unit 1 p. 12

Study Introduction to Unit 2 (UK Supreme Court) p.14-15 (+16/20 interesting points)

+ Read and prepare the document for the presentation:

Presentation topics:

Groups 16 and 17: Unit 1, text n° 4 p. 9: The Law Explored: naked and unarmed... (by Gary Slapper)

Group 54: Unit 2, text n° 7: p. 27-28 MB (Appellant) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Respondent)

L3 Presentation Topic on the Sixth Amendment (Week 10)

Presentation topic for G 16, G 17, G 54

Justices Strengthen Right to Confront Witnesses

March 8, 2004 The New York Times

By DAVID STOUT

WASHINGTON, March 8 — The Supreme Court overturned an assault conviction from Washington State today as it broadened and sharpened a defendant's constitutional right to confront witnesses against him.

In a case that has been closely watched by defense lawyers and prosecutors, the justices unanimously set aside the conviction of Michael D. Crawford of Olympia, who has been serving a 14-year sentence for stabbing a man who he apparently believed had tried to rape his wife.

The stabbing took place on Aug. 5, 1999, in the apartment of the victim, Kenneth Lee, in the presence of the defendant's wife, Sylvia. Mr. Crawford told the police that he had acted in self-defense. The case might have played out as a commonplace incident, ugly but routine, except that Mr. Crawford invoked the marital privilege under Washington State law to prevent his wife from testifying against him.

At trial, prosecutors introduced a tape recording of the statement that Mrs. Crawford had made under police questioning. They did so because there were discrepancies between the accounts of husband and wife, and prosecutors thought the wife's statement would undermine her husband's claim of self-defense.

In reversing the conviction today, the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, cited the familiar phrase in the Sixth Amendment that in all criminal prosecutions the defendant shall enjoy the right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him."

"The right to confront one's accusers is a concept that dates back to Roman times," Justice Scalia wrote.

That general principle of the Sixth Amendment has not been absolute in practice. A 1980 Supreme Court decision[1] spelled out certain instances in which the testimony of an unavailable witness may be allowed at trial, among them when the trial judge deems the witness particularly reliable for various reasons.

Today's ruling effectively erased the 1980 decision and severely curtailed, while not eliminating, prosecutors' ability to use the accounts of witnesses who cannot be cross-examined during trial. The American Civil Liberties Union and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers had filed briefs urging the conclusion that the court reached today.

In voiding the verdict and sending the case back to the lower courts, possibly for retrial, Justice Scalia held that the Sixth Amendment commands "not that evidence be reliable, but that reliability be assessed in a particular manner: by testing in the crucible of cross-examination."

Alluding to the 1980 decision, Justice Scalia wrote: "Dispensing with confrontation because testimony is obviously reliable is akin to dispensing with jury trial because a defendant is obviously guilty. This is not what the Sixth Amendment prescribes."

The ramifications of today's ruling may not become clear immediately, but they could affect a number of previous convictions across the country. The testimony of a witness who cannot be cross-examined during trial may still be allowed, but only if the defense has had a chance to cross-examine him or her at an earlier stage in the case.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist filed a separate opinion, joined by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in which he agreed that Mr. Crawford's conviction should be set aside. But the chief justice said Justice Scalia had swept aside the court's 1980 holding without sufficiently defining for "thousands of federal prosecutors and the tens of thousands of state prosecutors" exactly what rules they can apply.

"They need them now, not months or years from now," the chief justice wrote.

Today's ruling in Crawford v. Washington, No. 02-9410, reversed a ruling by the Washington State Supreme Court. The state high court had reinstated the conviction after it had been set aside by a state appellate court.

L3 The Fifth Amendment (Double-jeopardy): Blueford v Arkansas (2012)

Blueford v. Arkansas (2012)
(See booklet, p. 68-69)

Summary:

Blueford, the defendant in this case, had been left in charge of his girlfriend’s one-year-old child. After a short while, the child had to be taken to hospital / Blueford’s friend, present at the scene, had to call emergency services to take the child to hospital because the latter was breathing with difficulty.
Having established that the death of child had been caused by close head injury, the police charged Blueford with capital murder, first-degree murder, manslaughter and negligent homicide.

Following protracted deliberation, the jury still deadlocked on some of the charges and proved unable either to find Blueford guilty of at least one the charges, or to acquit him of all charges. The judge therefore declared a mistrial.

(to deadlock on an issue / on some of the charges)

When the State of Arkansas re-indicted Blueford (prosecuted Blueford on all charges a second time), the latter moved to dismiss the capital murder and first-degree murder counts (the two most serious charges) arguing that such charges infringed on his Fifth Amendment protection against double-jeopardy.


(voc: a motion to dismiss)
 
In its majority opinion, however, the Supreme Court first contended that the jury had not formally acquitted the defendant so that his second trial did not violate Blueford’s constitutional rights.

(“Unlike cases where acquittal on lesser charges precluded retrial on greater charges, the jury’s decision here was not final”: The Court established a distinction between a report and a verdict).

Indeed, Justice Roberts further argued, Arkansas law requires either a conviction or a complete acquittal on all charges, which was not the case in Blueford’s trial.

Sotomayor’s vigorous dissent (/ The main argument of Sotomayor’s vigorous dissent) rests on a different interpretation of Arkansas law.

(voc: the opinion brought a sharp dissent from Justice Sotomayor)

Arkansas, she claims, is what is called an “acquittal-first jurisdiction” in which a jury may not consider a lesser-included offense unless and until it rejects a more serious offense.

Although Blueford had not formally been acquitted, the fact that the jury deadlocked when considering manslaughter proves / necessarily implies that they had implicitly rejected the counts of capital murder and first-degree murder. 



NB:
Close head injuries are a type of traumatic brain injury in which the skull and dura mater remain intact.

Arkansas is an "acquittal-first" jurisdiction, in which a jury may not consider a lesser-included offense unless and until it rejects a more serious offense. In other words, Blueford's jury could not consider the first-degree murder charge unless and until it rejected the capital murder charge, and it could not consider manslaughter unless and until it rejected first-degree murder. When Blueford's jury told the court it could not reach agreement, the forewoman told the judge that it was "unanimous against" capital and first-degree murder, but could not agree on manslaughter or negligent homicide. The judge sent the jury to deliberate further, refusing Blueford's request that the jury be allowed to enter a partial acquittal on the two charges.

L2 Students Correction of ex. 2 p. 26 (The First Amendment, the Religion Clauses)

Part Two: The religion clauses
Exercise 2:
At a basic level, the establishment clause and the free exercise clause have been interpreted to protect (1) religious liberty in different but complementary ways. The establishment clause prevents the government from establishing (2) a state religion or using the powers of the government to support a particular religion, and the free exercise clause prohibits the government from (3) intruding on individual religious choices. By (4) forbidding state support of religion, the establishment clause gives greater latitude to an individual’s exercise of religious choice, and by committing religious belief and practice to the (5) realm of individual choice, the free exercise clause reduces the possibility that religion will become an area of state power.
Freedom of religion is so fundamental (6) to our understanding of the American way of life that it may be surprising that the Supreme Court dealt with few religion cases (7) until the middle of the twentieth century. By then, of course, the role of government had vastly expanded; states as well as the federal government (8) regulated, intervened in, and financially supported a (9) host of activities that previously had been wholly committed to the private sector. In doing so, the potential (10) conflict between the establishment clause and the free exercise clause became apparent. If a stare provides special education services to students in a religious school, isn’t it supporting an establishment of religion? But if it does not, is it (11) abridging the free exercise of religion by parents whose beliefs compel them to send their children to religious school?
Extract from Law 101, by Jay M. Feinman (2010)