answers

[lawbird]

thanks. yeh it propably will be that the main crux of it is dishonesty only i'm not arguing on that groud, theres two of us for the respondents to an appeal against his conviction. the guy thats with me is arguing the dishonesty point and i have to argue the blood was property. i would not mind if i was on the defence side! piece of p! lol

[Gmcd01]

Just a quick point...If you're the respondents, and as you say you're arguing against his conviction...wouldn't you want to say blood isn't property and thus couldn't be stolen? It might be a typo in the question or it could be me! I've not looked through the other responses, but if it hasn't already been mentioned, try R v Sharpe (1857). Pull it up onLexis Nexis if you have access and follow through the succeeding cases until you get to the most recent/relevant. If you find that the current law is inconsistent with your argument, then moot that the previous cases were wrongly decided or took an incorrect turn. Should win you the research marks, if not the legal argument. How I miss mooting!

[bednobs]

another quick point ... if this refers to another question you,ve asked, or another post, it makes more sense to answer in the original post. that way people know what the hell you're talking baout!

[lawbird]

yeh yeh bednobs.
and Gmcd01no i wouldn' be arguing that blood is not property, i am responding to the appeal...i want him to stay in prison!lol

[bubbles35]

what the heck i agree what are you on

[lawbird]

Redbull and prozac!lol like all students. basically i am argung for the prosecution, i have alrady submitted my skeeton argument now though, thanks for all yur help guys and girls alike!