European Law Students Association Ireland Moot Court Competition 2016

Transcription

1 European Law Students Association Ireland Moot Court Competition 2016 Information Technology Law Online Harassment March 12 th 1

2 Contents 1. Introduction Competition Question Competition Rules and guidelines Teams Appellant/ Respondent Written Submissions Oral Rounds Marking Schemes Semi-Finals Timetable

3 Dear Student, It is my pleasure, as Vice-President for Moot Court Competitions of the European Law Students Association (ELSA) Ireland, to invite you to participate in the Inaugural ELSA Ireland Moot Court Competition on I.T. Law taking place on the 12 th day of March 2016 in the Four Courts, Dublin. ELSA is an international law students association run by students and young legal professionals for the benefit of students. ELSA was established by five law students from Austria, Hungary, Poland and West Germany founded ELSA in Today ELSA is the world s largest independent law students association and it is represented at nearly 300 law faculties in 43 countries across Europe with membership in excess of 40,000 law students and young legal professionals. ELSA-activities comprise of a large variety of academic and professional events and projects that are organised to fulfil the vision of ELSA and in order to provide our members opportunities to enhance their skills and to interact with each other. Furthermore, ELSA provides law students opportunities to develop their skills through our traineeship programme as well as through our publications. Finally, working in the ELSA Network prepares active members of ELSA for their professional life through international experience gained through the association. It is with this is mind that ELSA Ireland is hosting this Competition this year and I wish you the best of luck should you choose to participate. Yours Sincerely, Ruadhán O Riordan Vice-President for Moot Court Competitions 2015/2016 ELSA Ireland 3

4 COURT OF APPEAL Between: LOGAN PLISKO APPELLANT -and- DPP RESPONDENT COMPETITION PROBLEM QUESTION Facts of the Case Mr. Logan Plisko was working at a medium-sized financial services firm when he met his colleague Ms. Angela Thornton for the first time. They began dating but their relationship was tumultuous from the beginning. According to Ms. Thornton, Mr. Plisko had an intimidating temper and would often shout at her when angry. In an effort to avoid confrontation, Ms. Thornton SMS texted Mr. Plisko in order to break up with him. She signed off the SMS message stating that she had installed an app that would block him from texting or calling her. Following this SMS message, Mr. Plisko sent Ms. Thornton a private message through a social media account, calling her a lying witch and claiming that other men wouldn t stand for her crap and would make her pay for her behaviour. Ten minutes later, Mr. Plisko 4

5 sent Ms. Thornton a second private message, warning her that she d want to watch herself and that her life was about to go seriously downhill. At this point, Ms. Thornton blocked Mr. Plisko from all her social media accounts. Enraged, Mr. Plisko posted the following post on his own social media page referencing a violent song lyric. Several of Mr. Plisko s and Ms. Thornton s colleagues saw the status and one colleague took a screen shot and ed it to Ms. Thornton, asking her whether everything was ok. Ms. Thornton was shocked and frightened by the message and called An Garda Síochána to report the incident. The Case at the Circuit Court Mr. Plisko was tried, under indictment, at the Circuit Court in April Mr. Plisko was prosecuted under Section 10 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997 in relation to the s he sent directly to Ms. Thornton. In addition, he was prosecuted under Section 5 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997 in relation to the post on his own social media page. Conviction under Section 10 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997 Counsel for Mr. Plisko had argued that Mr. Plisko was merely warning Ms. Thornton of how other men would treat her and that his messages could not be considered harassment. According to counsel for Mr. Plisko, the two private messages that he sent to Ms. Thornton did not constitute persistent communication without reasonable excuse. When addressing the jury, the judge reminded the jury members that the test for harassment was not whether Mr. Plisko intended to cause alarm to Ms. Thornton, but whether a reasonable person would realise that the private messages would seriously interfere with Ms. 5

6 Thornton s peace and privacy or cause alarm, distress or harm to Ms. Thornton. In his comments to the jury, the judge urged the jury: Try and put yourselves in the position of Ms. Thornton s mother and father and ask yourself whether Mr. Plisko s persistent messages would cause alarm Conviction under Sections 5 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997 Mr. Plisko was also convicted under Sections 5 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, This conviction was made in regard to his social media post on his own social media profile. Counsel for Mr. Plisko argued that the post was not intended as a threat to kill or to cause serious harm to Ms. Thornton and that Mr. Plisko was merely venting his frustrations and exercising his right to free expression when he posted the comments on his own profile page. He had less than 200 connections who could see the post and according to Mr. Plisko s counsel, Mr. Plisko viewed his social media account as a safe place where he could communicate with his friends about his difficulties and reach out to his support network. Counsel for Mr. Plisko pointed out that Mr. Plisko knew that Ms. Thornton had blocked him from all social media at the time he posted the relevant status. After describing Mr. Plisko s social media post as both disgusting and distressing, the judge directed the jury on the meaning of Section 5 of Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, The judge pointed out that the offence requires the threat to be made with the intention of making the subject of the threat to believe that the threat will be carried out. The judge pointed out that Mr. Plisko knew that he had many shared connections including colleagues with Ms. Thornton on social media and must have known that she would learn of his posts. The jury found Mr. Plisko to be guilty of offences under Section 5 and Section 10 of the Non- Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997, and he was sentenced to seven years in prison. Counsel for Mr. Plisko appealed to the Court of Appeal, on the grounds that the judge had misdirected the jury and also on the grounds that the length of the sentence imposed by the Circuit Court was excessive. 6

7 Competition Rules and Guidelines Teams - Each team shall consist of two or three members. - The cost of registration will be 40 per ELSA Member and 50 per non-elsa Member. - Two team members will submit oral arguments during each round. Teams may alternate their Speakers for each round should they wish. Speakers may confer with their colleagues during the oral submissions. - All teams must be registered by 5pm sharp on the 14 th of February Appellant/Respondent - For the purposes of this competition the Appellant will always be Logan Plisko and the Respondent will always be The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). Written Submissions - Students working as a team are required to prepare: Written submissions on behalf of the Applicant, setting out the arguments which will be made on his behalf. Written submissions on behalf of the Respondent, setting out the arguments which will be made on his behalf Each written submission should be between a minimum of 1,500 words and a maximum of 2,000 words and should make reference to relevant case-law, legislation, constitutional provisions and other relevant legal sources. 7

8 - Written submissions must be sent to in MS or PDF format by 5pm sharp on the 5 th of March Late submissions will not be accepted and will result in zero marks for the written submissions. Oral Rounds - Each team will be given 10 minutes to read their opposition s written submissions at the start of each round. Having had 10 minutes to consider the opposition s arguments the oral submissions will commence. - During the Oral Rounds each team member will be given a maximum of 7 minutes to present their oral arguments. There will also be 3 minutes for each team member to submit their rebuttal. - The order of the oral submissions in each round shall be as follows; Team X (Appellant): Member 1 Team X (Appellant): Member 2 Team Y (Respondent): Member 1 Team Y (Respondent): Member 2 Team X (Appellant): Member 1 Rebuttal Team X (Appellant): Member 2 Rebuttal Team Y (Respondent): Member 1 Rebuttal Team Y (Respondent): Member 2 Rebuttal Marking Scheme - Written Submissions; - Each written submission will be given a mark out of The marking scheme is as follows; Command of the issues, including application of relevant law to the facts of the Competition Question (30), Structure and clarity of the submission (20). - Preliminary Round Oral Submissions; 8

9 - Each individual speaker will be given a mark out of 100 for each oral presentation including their rebuttal. - The marking scheme is as follows; Command of the issues, including application of relevant law to the facts (30) Persuasiveness (30) Ability to answer questions/ respond to points made (20) Structure and Clarity (10) Courtroom Manner (10) - Scoring will not reflect the merits of the facts of the case but only on the quality and force of legal arguments. - The team mark per Preliminary Round will be based on each of the individual team members marks for their oral presentations (and will be out of a total of 200 marks). - Post Preliminary Overall Marks; - The team s final overall mark after the Preliminary Rounds have been completed (out of a total of 500 marks) will be based on the addition of the marks earned from the written submissions (out of a total of 100 marks) and each of the individual team member s oral submissions from each of the Preliminary Rounds (out of a total 400 marks). - The 4 teams with the highest overall marks will progress to the Semi-Finals. - In the event of a tie for a position in the Semi-Finals, the team with the higher marks for their written submissions will progress to the Final. If it remains a tie after the marks for the written submission 9

10 marks have been compared, then the team who received the higher marks for their oral submissions in the first Preliminary Round will progress to the Final. Semi-Finals; - Each team competing in the Semi- Finals will be assigned their opposition randomly. - The Judge/Judges of the Semi-Finals will decide which teams progress to the Final. There will be no marks awarded for submissions during these rounds. Timetable Registration 9:45-10:00 Welcome 10:00 10:15 1 st Round 10:15 11:30 Break 11:30 11:45 2 nd Round 11:45 13:00 Lunch 13:00 14:00 Semi-Finals 14:00 16:00 Final 16:00 18:00 Prize giving 18:00 onwards 10

11 11