English Legal System

In criminal cases, it is common practice to cite the case as R v Smith. This is because "R" stands for "Regina" or "Rex," which means "the Queen" in Latin. The "v" stands for "versus," indicating that the case is between the Crown (represented by the Queen) and the defendant (in this case, Smith). Therefore, the given statement is true.

The statement is false because "ratio decidendi" refers to the legal reasoning or principle that forms the basis for the court's decision. It is the essential part of the judgment that is necessary for the decision and sets a precedent for future cases. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that ratio decidendi includes things that are not necessary for the decision.

In civil cases, the standard of proof is not "beyond reasonable doubt." Instead, the standard of proof in civil cases is "preponderance of the evidence." This means that the plaintiff must prove their case by showing that it is more likely than not that their claims are true. The standard of "beyond reasonable doubt" is used in criminal cases, where the prosecution must prove the defendant's guilt to such a high degree that there is no reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors.

In civil cases, the aim is not to control behavior that society disapproves of, but rather to resolve disputes between individuals or entities. Civil cases typically involve private matters such as contracts, property disputes, or personal injury claims, where the goal is to provide compensation or a resolution for the parties involved. The statement contradicts this aim, making the correct answer False.

The statement is false. "Obiter dicta" refers to the statements made by a judge in a legal case that are not directly relevant to the decision or binding precedent. It is the ratio decidendi, or the legal principle of a case, that forms the binding precedent.

Equity did not precede the common law. In fact, equity developed as a separate system of law in England to address the limitations and rigidities of the common law. The common law originated first and was based on customs and precedents established by the courts. Equity, on the other hand, was developed by the Court of Chancery to provide remedies when the common law was inadequate. Therefore, the correct answer is False.

At common law, the only available remedy was damages. This means that if someone suffered harm or loss due to another party's actions, the only way to seek compensation was through monetary damages. Other forms of remedies, such as injunctions or specific performance, were not available. This principle was followed in the legal system based on common law traditions. Therefore, the statement "At common law the only remedy was damages" is true.

The statement is false because public law does not include intellectual property law. Public law primarily deals with the relationship between individuals and the government, including criminal law and administrative law. Intellectual property law, on the other hand, is a branch of private law that focuses on protecting intellectual creations such as patents, trademarks, and copyrights. Therefore, intellectual property law falls under the category of private law, not public law.