HOW TO ANSWER PROBLEM QS Flashcards
What not to do with IRAC
I’m going to talk about each element in turn, but before I do so it’s imperative you NEVER apply the IRAC process to the question as a whole. In other words, you aren’t breaking your answer into four big chunks where you begin by looking at all the issues, then all the rules, then apply the rules, before crafting a huge conclusion on everything. Instead, you are dividing the answer into a number of separate issues and sub-issues that must be explored in turn using the IRAC method.
For example, let’s say we had a problem question dealing with 3 different people, Tom, Daisy, and Harry and their respective liability for an injury sustained by Emily. We could break down the problem question by structuring our answer as to the liability of each party (e.g. Tom’s liability, Daisy’s liability, and Harry’s liability). Then within each of these ‘issues’ we should be able to identify subissues, which we apply the IRAC method to. For example, you may have to analyse whether Harry owes a duty of care or whether there are any defences available to him, in which case you should make a statement of the
How to apply idea
Your job here is to look at the facts in the problem question and analyse them in relation to two key variables: parties and events. So, this is a two stage process.
Firstly, with respect to parties, jot down each of the people that are identified in the problem question and write next to them whether they are someone who has a claim (i.e. something happened to them) or they are someone who faces liability (i.e. they did something wrong).
Once you’ve done that, you want to determine how each of the parties relate to one another. In other words, you need to clearly write down how the ‘victim’ in the problem question relates to the ‘wrongdoer’ and what the specific event that took place to potentially give rise to a claim.
The purpose of this exercise is to build the structure for your answer setting you up for success. The obvious approach would be to structure your problem question by considering each party one by one (e.g. Tom’s liability), but clearly establishing the issues allows you to see the myriad of possible offences that may need to be analysed as sub-issues. For example, if Tom killed Emily, we will have to analyse the actus reus and mens rea of the offence as sub-issues to help us determine whether or not it was murder.
How to apply rule
Now we have a structure for our answer based on the issues within the problem question, it’s time to turn to the law.
I like to open up my textbook, statute books, and relevant websites to simply learn the law around the issues I identified and create some VERY brief notes. There’s no need to go into too much depth because you’re simply looking for supporting authority. For instance, if I was trying to prove mens rea I may look for relevant cases that help explain what is meant by ‘intention’ or with theft I will be looking for its statutory definition.
My top tip here though is to avoid abstract statements of the law. The purpose of finding the relevant ‘rules’ is to simply state the law rather than applying - you don’t need to think too deeply as you’re only making it clear to the reader you are aware of what needs to be proved for there to be liability. What does the statutory law say? What does the case law say? These are the sorts of things you want to write down; the application of this law comes in the next stage.
How to apply ‘application’
Having identified the issue at hand and the relevant law, our focus is on marrying them together to answer the questions. Fortunately, this is a relatively straightforward process as long as we aren’t lazy in our application and don’t just end up critically analysing the law as if we were dealing with an essay.
For example, if we were dealing with the issue of Tom taking Emily’s purse and his liability for theft, we would start by turning to the definition of theft, which is the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with intention to permanently deprive.
By breaking down the components of this definition we find that the actus reus of theft involves appropriating property belonging to another. We can then apply the law to the facts by asking ourselves whether or not Tom’s actions of picking up the purse and placing it in his rucksack was an exercise of the rights of ownership, and therefore whether or not it makes out the actus reus of the crime.
You see, a good understanding of the law makes its application to the facts quite straightforward. By doing the groundwork in advance of finding the issues, understanding the facts of the case, and identifying the law, you can approach the problem question with a coherent understanding of what advice you need to give.
How to conclude IRAC
For each of the issues and sub-issues you identified at the start you need to form a conclusion. This conclusion must address the overall liability of the parties, including the potential ‘punishment’ that they could face, and ensure that all your conclusions are aligned and consistent with one another.
Unlike an essay question, where a more authoritative conclusion is usually desired, in a problem question you don’t need to be determinative. The nature of a problem question means there are going to be some grey areas of the law and saying “it depends” could be the ‘correct’ answer. But if you do that, make sure you state what the contingent factors and how liability would differ depending on the approach taken by the court.
