Lahore University of Management Sciences

Transcription

1 Lahore University of Management Sciences Law 101 Introduction to Legal Reasoning Section 3 Spring 2017 Instructor TBD Room No. - Office Hours TBD - Telephone - Secretary/TA TBD TA Office Hours TBD Course URL (if any) - COURSE BASICS Credit Hours 4 Lecture(s) No. Lectures per week 2 Duration 1 hr 50 mins per session Recitation/Lab (per week) No. Lectures per week None Duration None Tutorial (per week) No. Lectures per week None Duration None Core Elective Open for Student Category COURSE DISTRIBUTION BA/LLB Non-law students Open to All 1

2 Close for Student Category - COURSE DESCRIPTION This course aims to introduce students to different areas of law and to describe the process of legal reasoning used by the courts in case-law, interpretation of statutes and of the Constitution. It introduces students introduces the students to landmark Pakistani, US, European, and international law cases, discussing their reasoning in depth. The students would be trained to employ cognitive, critical reasoning and analytical skills in understanding the facts and legal issues in the selected cases. A Socratic teaching method would be used so as to enable dialogue and discussion. COURSE PREREQUISTE (S) None COURSE OBJECTIVES To familiarize students with the following areas of law: Fundamental Rights, Judicial Review, Civil Law, Criminal Law, International Law, Shariah Law and Environmental Law To teach students how to apply a law to a specific set of facts and undertake logical reasoning in reaching a conclusion To introduce students to contemporary legal issues LEARNING OUTCOMES To gain a basic understanding of the legal principles applicable in different areas of law To understand the legal as well as policy reasons behind judicial decisions GRADING BREAKUP AND POLICY Group Presentations: 20% 2

3 Quiz (s): 20% (2 Announced) Class Participation & 10% (5% Each) Attendance Midterm Examination 20% Final Examination 30% Attendance Policy and Class Norms Students are expected to attend all classes. Any student who is more than 10 minutes late to class will be marked absent and may, at the instructor s discretion, be barred from sitting in the class. As per law school policy, more than 3 unexcused absences will lead to a grade reduction. All absences must be approved by the instructor, prior to the class in question, for it to be executed. Midterm Exam Final Exam EXAMINATION DETAIL Yes/No: Yes Combine/Separate: Separate Duration: 2 Hours Preferred Date: As per the University schedule Exam Specifications: Short Questions Yes/No: Yes Combine/Separate: Separate Duration: 3 Hours Exam Specifications: MCQs and Short Questions COURSE OVERVIEW Session 1 Introduction - - Overview of the course and syllabus. Session 2 Legal Reasoning (1) An Introduction to Legal Students would be taught how to identify case facts, 3

4 Session 3 Ratio decidendi, Obiter dicta, IRAC Reasoning by Edward H. Levi (1) Barry Friedman & John Goldberg Open Book, P spot the issue, determine the reasoning and the holding in a case. (2) Holand & Webb Learning Legal Rules, P FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS SESSIONS 4-9 Session 4 Freedom of Religion Students will be able to understand the limitations (1) Leyla Sahin v. Turkey (ECHR [2004]) (1) Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith (494 put in place by the State on the right to exercise one s own religion. (2) Zaheeruddin v. State of U.S 872 [1990]) Pakistan (1993 SCMR 1718) (3) S.M.C. No. 1 of 2014 (PLD 2014 (2) Shri Ram Janmabhoomi & Babri Masjid [Supreme Court] 699) Session 5 Freedom of Speech I Inflammatory/Hate Speech and Contempt of Court (1) Brandenburg v. Ohio (395 U.S. 444 [1969]) (2) High Court Bar Association v. Government of Balochistan (PLD 2013 [Quetta] 75) (3) Contempt Proceedings against Imran Khan, Chairman, Pakistan Tehreek-I-Insaf (2014 PLD [Supreme Court] 367] (1) New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (376 U.S. 254 [1964]) (2) Texas v. Johnson (491 U.S. 397 [1989]) Discussion will focus on the topic of hate speech that may incite violent acts. Furthermore, the concept of contempt of court through defamatory remarks against the judiciary will be looked act. 4

5 Session 6 Freedom of Speech II Obscenity and Blasphemy Cases (1) Roth v. United States (354 U.S. 476 [1957]) (2) Crown v. Saadat Hassan Manto (PLD 1952 [Lahore] 384) (1) Muhammad Mahboob v. The State (PLD 2002 [Lahore] 587) (2) Ayub Masih v. The State (PLD 2002 [Supreme Court] 1048) The impact of speech or symbols on the values, morals and religious sensitivities of society would be discussed. Session 7 Right to Privacy Abortion, Search and Seizure (1) Roe v. Wade (410 U.S. 113 [1973]) (2) Niketa Mehta Case (2008 Bombay High Court) (3) United States v. Warshak (631 F.3d 266 [U.S. Court of Appeals] (4) Muhammad Imran v. The State (2005 PCrLJ [Federal Shariat Court] 1596) (5) The Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016 (1) Smith v. Maryland (442 U.S. 735 [1979]) (2) Muhammad Abbas v. The State (2005 YLR [Lahore] 3193) The concept of inviolable dignity of an individual would be looked at and juxtaposed with the state s interest in safety, security and well-being of its citizens. The Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act, 2016, would also be discussed. Session 8 Status Based Classifications I Race (1) Plessy v. Ferguson (163 U.S. 537 [1896]) (2) Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (347 U.S. 483 [1954]) (3) Grutter v. Bollinger (539 U.S. 306 [2003]) (1) Dred Scott v. Sanford (60 U.S. 393 [1857]) (2) Loving v. Virginia 9388 U.S. 1 [1967]) The evolving standards employed by court in determining whether a law is discriminatory would be looked at. Session 9 Status Based Classifications II Gender (1) United States v. Virginia (518 U.S. 515 [1996]) (1) Craig v. Boren (429 U.S. 190 [1976]) 5

6 Session 10 (2) Michael M. v. Superior Court of Sonoma County (450 U.S. 464 [1981]) (3) Danishmand v. Chairman, BISE, SWAT (2012 YLR [Peshawar] 80) QUIZ I JUDICIAL REVIEW OF PUBLIC ACTIONS SESSIONS Session 11 Constitutional Limits (1) Cooper v. Aaron (358 U.S. 1 on Power (1) Marbury v. Madison (5 U.S. 137 [1803]) (2) McCulloch v. Maryland (17 U.S. 316 [1819]) [1958]) (2) Baker v. Carr (369 U.S. 186 [1962]) (3) Pakistan Steel Mills Case (Constitution Petition No. 9 of 2006 & civil petition No. 345 & 394 of 2006 [Supreme Court]) The concept of separation of powers, judicial review and political question doctrine would be understood and analyzed. Session 12 Constitutional Amendments Basic Structure Doctrine (1) District Bar Association Rawalpindi v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2015 [Supreme Court] 401) Excerpts of the Judgment to be provided to the students (1) Coleman v. Miller, 307 U.S. 433 (1939) (2) Kesavananda v. Bharti (AIR 1973 SC 1461) (3) Mahmood Khan Ackakzai v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1997 [Supreme Court] 426) (4) Pakistan Lawyer s Forum v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2005 [Supreme Court] 719) The development of the basic structure doctrine in Pakistan as compared to its status in other jurisdictions would be discussed. 6

7 Session 13 Doctrine of Necessity (1) The State v. Dosso (1958 PLD [Supreme Court] 533) (2) Tika Iqbal Muhammad Khan v. General Pervez Musharaf (PLD 2008 [Supreme Court] 178) (3) Sindh High Court Bar Association v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2009 [Supreme Court] 879) (1) Begum Nusrat Bhutto v. Chief of Army Staff and Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1977 [Supreme Court] 657) (2) Syed Zafar Ali Shah v. General Pervaiz Musharraf (PLD 2000 [Supreme Court] 869 The use of the doctrine of state necessity to validate military action by the courts in Pakistan would be discussed. Session 14 MID-TERM EXAM INTERNATIONAL LAW SESSIONS Session 15 International Law - I (1) AG of the Government of Israel v. Eichman Session 16 International Law - II (1) Nicaragua v. U.S.A (ICJ Judgment 27 June 1986) (1) Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons (ICJ Advisory Opinion 8 July 1996) (2) Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (ICJ Advisory Opinion 9 July 2004) A basic introduction to international law in the light of the decisions by international courts. Specific topics such as territorial integrity, right of self-defence, use of weapons and trial by military commissions would be discussed. 7

8 Session 17 International Law - III (1) Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (548 U.S. 557 [2006]) CIVIL AND CRIMINAL LAW SESSIONS Session 18 Introduction to the Law of Contracts I Offer and Acceptance Session 19 Introduction to the Law of Contracts II Past Consideration, Part Performance, Session 20 Session 21 Introduction to the Law of Torts I Negligence Duty of Care, Standard of Care and Strict Liability (1) Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Company ([1892] EWCA Civ. 1 [Court of Appeal]) (2) Felthouse v Bindley ([1862] EWHC CP J 35) (3) Lucy v. Zehmer (196 Va. 493; 84 S.E.2d 516 [1954] [Supreme Court of Virginia]) (1) Hamer v. Sidway (124 N.Y. 538, 27 N.E. 256 (N.Y. 1891] [New York Court of Appeals] (2) Pinnel's Case ([1602] 5 Co. Rep. 117a) (1) Donoghue v Stevenson ([1932] UKHL 100) (2) United States v. Carroll Towing Co. (159 F.2d 169 [2d. Cir. 1947] (3) Rylands v Fletcher ([1868] UKHL 1) Session 22 Introduction to the Law of Torts II (1) Hakim Ali v. Messrs Pakistan (1) Mills v. Wyman (20 Mass. 207 [Mass. 1825]) (2) Webb v. McGowin (27 Ala.App. 82) QUIZ II The basic elements of a valid contract would be discussed. The basics of Tort Law would be discussed. (1) Sim v Stretch ([1936] 2 All ER 1237 [HL]) The law of defamation (libel and slander) would be 8

9 Session 23 Defamation Herald Publications (Pvt.) Ltd. through Chief Executive (PLD 2007 [Karachi] 415) (2) Syed Mehmood Ali v. Network Television Marketing (2005 PLD [Karachi] 399) Criminal Law I Actus Reus, Mens Rea (1) R v. Cato ([1976] 1 WLR 110 [CA]) (2) R v. Kennedy ([2007] UKHL 38) (3) R v. Cunningham (41 Crim. App. 155 [1957]) (4) Commonwealth v. Carroll (194 Session 24 Criminal Law II Qisas and Diyat Session 25 Criminal Law III Blasphemy Case A. 2d 911 [1963]) (1) Ghulam Yaseen v. The State (PLD 1994 [Lahore] 392) (2) Muhammad Siddique v. The State (PLD 2002 [Lahore] 444) (3) Zahid Rehman v. The State (PLD 2015 [Supreme Court] 77) (4) The Criminal Law (Amendment) (Offences in the name or pretext of Honour) Act, 2016 (1) Mumtaz Qadri v. The State (Criminal Appeals No. 210 and 211 of 2015 [Supreme Court]) (2) Monson v Tussauds ([1894] 1 Q.B. 671) (3) Bonnard v. Perryman ([1891] 2 Ch. 269) discussed. The elements required for proof of a criminal offence would be looked at. The contrasting judgments in Pakistan on the issue of commission of Qatl on the basis of ghairat would be looked at. The bill passed by the Parliament in respect of honor killings would also be discussed. The recent judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan upholding the death sentence of Mumtaz Qadri would be discussed. SHARIAH LAW SESSION 26 9

10 Session 26 Hudood Laws Offence of Zina (1) Abdul Waheed v. Asma Jahangir (Saima Waheed Case) (PLD 1997 [Lahore] 301) (2) Humaira Mehmood v. The State (PLD 1999 [Lahore] 494) (1) Zafran Bibi v. The State (PLD 2002 [Federal Shariat Court] 1) (2) Safia Bibi v. The State (1994 P.Cr.L.J [Federal Shariat Court] 1371) To discuss the implementation of Hudood laws and its effect on the rights of women. ENVIRONMENTAL LAW SESSION 27 Session 27 Environmental Law Judgment of the Lahore High Court on construction of the Orange Line Session 28 REVISION A brief overview of the environmental law in Pakistan through the judgment on the Lahore high Court on construction of the Orange Line.. Textbook(s)/Supplementary Readings Compulsory readings provided in the Course Pack (Volumes I & II). Soft-copies of the recommended readings would be uploaded on LMS. 10