IRAC

The IRAC method is a framework for organizing legal analysis. The acronym stands
for Issue, Rule, Application, and Conclusion. It is widely used in law schools to
structure answers to legal problem questions and is essential for clear and logical legal
writing.

Issue: Identify the legal question or problem. This is the "issue" that needs to be
addressed. For example, a law student might frame the issue as: "Does the defendant
have a duty of care towards the plaintiff in a negligence claim?"

Rule: State the legal rule or principle that applies to the issue. This includes relevant
statutes, case law, or legal doctrines. For example, the student might reference the rule
from Donoghue v Stevenson for the duty of care in negligence.

Application: Apply the rule to the facts of the case. This is where the student analyzes
how the rule fits the specific circumstances, discussing the facts that support or
undermine the application of the rule. For example, they might discuss whether the
defendant's actions breached the duty of care in the context of the case facts.

Conclusion: Provide a conclusion based on the application. The student would

conclude whether the defendant is likely liable for negligence based on the analysis.

Example of IRAC in Action:

Issue: Is a shopkeeper liable for injuries to a customer who slipped on a wet floor?
Rule: Under premises liability, shopkeepers owe a duty of care to keep their premises
reasonably safe for customers (e.g., based on the Occupiers’ Liability Act).
Application: The shopkeeper might be liable if it can be shown they were aware of the
wet floor and did not take reasonable steps to warn customers or clean it up.
Conclusion: The shopkeeper is likely liable if the wet floor was present long enough
that they should have addressed it, and the customer’s injury resulted from this
neglect.
How Law Students Use IRAC:

Exam Answers: Students can structure exam answers clearly and logically using
IRAC, ensuring they address each component of the legal problem.
Legal Memos: IRAC helps in drafting legal memos where students must analyze legal
issues methodically.
Case Briefs: When summarizing cases, IRAC assists in identifying the central issue,
the court's ruling, the reasoning, and the final judgment.

Below is a practical example of how student can use IRAC to answer scenario
questions.

QUESTION
James and Henry got into an argument. James has always disliked Henry and breaks a
glass, stabbing him in the neck. Henry is taken to hospital where he is informed that
he needs a blood transfusion to survive. He refuses the blood transfusion because of
his religious beliefs. He dies. When arrested James says he did not mean to kill or
even injure Henry. He says he was merely acting "in the heat of the moment".
(25 Marks)

SUGGESTED SOLUTION

Issue
The primary issue is whether James can be held criminally liable for Henry's death,
given that Henry refused a life saving blood transfusion due to his religious beliefs.

Rule
To establish criminal liability for murder or manslaughter, several elements must be
satisfied:

Actus Reus (Guilty Act): The physical act of causing death.

Mens Reus (Guilty Mind): The intention or recklessness in causing death or serious
injury.
Causation: A direct causal link between the defendant's act and the victim's death.
Defenses: Any potential defenses that might absolve or mitigate liability.
Relevant Legal Principles
Murder: Defined as the unlawful killing of another human being with malice
aforethought (intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm).
Manslaughter: Can be voluntary (killing with intent but under mitigating
circumstances, like provocation) or involuntary (killing without intent, through
recklessness or negligence).
Causation: The defendant's act must be the factual and legal cause of death.
Factual Causation: "But for" the defendant's actions, the death would not have
occurred.
Legal Causation: The defendant's actions must be a substantial and operating cause
of the death, without any intervening acts breaking the chain of causation.
Thin Skull Rule: The defendant must take the victim as they find them, meaning pre-
existing conditions or beliefs of the victim do not absolve the defendant of liability.
Novus Actus Interveniens: A new intervening act that breaks the chain of causation,
potentially absolving the defendant of liability.

Application

Actus Reus:
James stabbed Henry in the neck, a clear actus reus of causing serious harm, which
resulted in Henry's death.
Mens Reus:
James claims he did not mean to kill or injure Henry and acted in the heat of the
moment. However, stabbing someone in the neck with a broken glass is likely to be
seen as reckless or intentional infliction of serious harm. Courts often infer intent
from the natural and probable consequences of one's actions.
Causation:
Factual Causation: "But for" James's act of stabbing, Henry would not have been in
a position to need a blood transfusion.
Legal Causation: The refusal of the blood transfusion by Henry does not break the
chain of causation. According to the thin skull rule, James must take Henry as he
finds him, including his religious beliefs.
Relevant Case: In R v Blaue [1975] 1 WLR 1411, the court held that the defendant
was liable for the victim's death despite the victim refusing a blood transfusion for
religious reasons. The refusal did not break the chain of causation.
Defenses:
Provocation/Heat of the Moment: If James acted in the heat of the moment due to
the argument, this might reduce the offense from murder to voluntary manslaughter
under the common law defense of provocation (now subsumed under "loss of control"
in the UK).
Intoxication or Diminished Responsibility: If relevant, could potentially mitigate
the liability further.
Conclusion
James is likely to be held criminally liable for Henry's death. Despite his claim of
acting in the heat of the moment and not intending to kill or injure, the act of stabbing
Henry in the neck is likely to be seen as either intentional or recklessly indifferent to
the outcome. The refusal of the blood transfusion by Henry, based on his religious
beliefs, does not break the chain of causation. Therefore, James's actions are both the
factual and legal cause of Henry's death. Depending on further facts, the charge may
range from murder to voluntary manslaughter if there is sufficient evidence of acting
under provocation or in the heat of the moment.

QUESTION
a) Tim is so angry at Lara he charges at her waving his fists shouting ‘I will kill
you!’ Lara runs out of the house and is hit by a car, breaking her hip in 2 places.

b) Larry is walking with friends on Dartmoor, and finds a rucksack. It has books,
clothes and £50. He leaves the rucksack but keeps the money

What is the criminal liability of Tim and Larry? (25 Marks)

SUGGESTED SOLUTION
Issue:
The issue in both scenarios involves determining the criminal liability of Tim and
Larry under the relevant laws.
Rule:
a) For Tim's case, the relevant legal principles include assault, attempted murder, and
causation.
b) For Larry's case, the relevant legal principles include theft and the actus reus and
mens rea elements of the offense.

Application:
a) Tim's actions of charging at Lara while waving his fists and shouting threats
constitute assault. Assault is defined as intentionally causing another person to
apprehend immediate unlawful violence. Tim's act of threatening to kill Lara while
charging at her fulfills this definition. However, Tim's actions do not amount to
attempted murder because although he threatened to kill Lara, there was no direct
action taken to carry out the threat. Additionally, Tim did not directly cause the harm
to Lara. The harm occurred when Lara ran out of the house and was hit by a car.
While Tim's actions may have contributed to Lara's fear and subsequent actions, it
cannot be reasonably argued that Tim's actions directly caused the harm to Lara's hip.
Therefore, Tim's criminal liability may be limited to assault.

b) Larry's actions of taking the money from the rucksack without permission
constitute theft. Theft is defined as dishonestly appropriating property belonging to
another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it. Larry's act of
taking the money without the owner's consent satisfies this definition.

Case Law:
a) R v. Ireland (1997): In this case, the defendant made silent phone calls to several
women, causing them fear and psychological harm. The House of Lords held that the
defendant's actions constituted assault as the victims apprehended immediate unlawful
violence.
b) R v. Lloyd (1985): In this case, the defendant took a coat from a coat rack in a pub
and removed money from the pocket. The defendant was found guilty of theft because
he dishonestly appropriated the money belonging to another with the intention of
permanently depriving the owner of it.

Conclusion:
a) Tim may be criminally liable for assault, but not for attempted murder or causing
the harm to Lara's hip.
b) Larry may be criminally liable for theft for taking the money from the rucksack
without permission.