write an essay which analyses/discusses in depth a LEGAL issue that was in the case you briefed
sources have to be Canadian – such as referencing the
criminal code of Canada
the legal issue to discuss in case & analyze:
– necessary vs. excessive use of force by police officers
– reference a legal case in the essay to show how it relates and how the law has been used before – use CANLII for this
Your sources (a minimum of two sources is required) must be: proper legal or academic articles; media reports and commentary by non-professionals do not qualify, nor do cases themselves. I want you to analyse the issue and learn something about it, not just repeat what was in a case or in the media.
I also want you to use your sources well; not just repeating or quoting the source, but referring to it in a way that shows you have read, understood, and thought about the concepts included in the reference source. The sources must form a part of your analysis – you can agree or disagree with what they say, but make a logical argument.
You can find legal sources through CanLII and academic sources through the library databases (we will discuss this in the legal research section)
You do not need to reference every little thing; try to put the entirety of the point and then in-text reference, e.g. “X argues…”(X, 2013 p.xx) which the reader can then follow up with (if they want to) through your reference page. If you are referencing a case, it would be “In A v. B, the court (or the specific judge) found…..”(A v. B (2015) para.xx) – the citation of a specific statement in a case requires that you cite the specific paragraph(s) where they say this.
Another important point: in your analysis essay, do not include “I think/argue/propose”; first person references are not appropriate here. You must state things without reference to yourself.
Do not provide your personal emotional assessment or opinion here; law is not a place for that. It frankly does not matter how you feel about something, it is what the law says that matters. You can argue for or against a proposition but it must be well-reasoned, not emotional.