irac essay example criminal law

THE IRAC METHOD EXAMPLE

Updated: Sep 30, 2023

We write law books using the IRAC method. We deliver the content of your course in the way you are expected to answer your questions. Have a look at the work exampled below. Then have a look at both the Core books and the Q&A law books.

IRAC METHOD EXAMPLE

What is irac method.

IRAC is an acronym which stands for the “Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion” (IRAC). You may structure your answer to any law problem question or essay topic using the IRAC method . The issue, rule, analysis, and conclusion (IRAC) make up the fundamental framework used by law students around the world. You may be confident that your answer is comprehensive if you use this straightforward approach for constructing it. Other methods exist such as Celo and the FACT LAW SANDWICH. Choose the one that works for you.

How do I use the IRAC method? There is no point in talking about applying IRAC unless we show you how it works. Let use this excerpt of a contact law, problem question, from a law past paper to show you a IRAC Method example: “Michael promises to sell his 3 year old BMW car to Chithra for £100.00 as he has recently won a new expensive car in a competition”.

IRAC METOD - ISSUE

Your answer should start by addressing the problem that is raised in the essay topic or the issue in the problem question, these are easy to spot in a problem because the facts of the cases you have studied (where the principle emerges) is to be applied will be similar to the facts in your problem scenario. Thus there are occasions when the question itself will supply the problem for you to solve. If this is not the case, the next question to ask is: What is the legal issue that, once answered, will decide the outcome of the case? It is recommended that the issue be posed in the form of a question, and that the inquiry be specific rather than generic.

How do you write a IRAC example? So using our example above the question that needs to be asked is: “Is Michael contractually obliged to provide the BMW car to Chithra for £100.00?” This is the legal issue and this is ultimately the advice Michael is looking for. We can refine that question even further to demonstrate being specific. Thus the question is: was there sufficient consideration and can Chithra bring an action against Michael for this promise?

IRAC METOD - RULE

The rule explains whether statute or case law guideline is relevant to the matter at hand. Instead of stating the rule as a conclusion to the specific instance that is being discussed, the rule needs to be articulated as a universal principle.

For example in Michael’s case of the BMW, consideration must be sufficient. It can range from some form of payment to other interests of value under the law. Consideration must also be ‘adequate’, in terms of a bargain being made, although it is not imperative. Sufficiency remains of prime importance when forming a contract.

IRAC METOD - ANALYSIS

Your analysis is both the most crucial and the most time-consuming component of your answer. This will includes adapting the Rule to the specific details of the issue or situation Michael is facing. You need to do this. Apply this information to demonstrate how the rule may be used to get the conclusion. When it is feasible to do so, discuss the situation from both perspectives. You have to predict what Chithra’s lawyers will argue. It is essential that you do not only assert a conclusion but also provide the grounds that support it. If you reach a conclusion without providing any supporting evidence or rationale, it indicates that you have not applied the principle and considered the relevant facts in your analysis of the problem. A helpful hint for your discourse is that you may use the rule as a guide.

For Michael’s example a case the authority establishing this principle is Thomas v Thomas , where the court held that as long as there is valid consideration. Under the authority of Currie v Misa then the agreement has some benefit or detriment to the parties. Furthermore in Chappel v Nestle , the courts stated the chocolate wrappers constituted purported consideration. It was held that the offer Nestle made for the exchange of chocolate wrappers provided that they were of some value.

IRAC METOD - CONCLUSION

After considering the position of the law you have to apply it to the scenario. Your solution to the problem is presented in the conclusion. This is the advice that Michael wants! Please share the findings of your assessment. As a rule of practice always give the bad news first and then the good news because then you can give them your bill.

For example in advice to Michael, if Michael promised to sell his 3 year old BMW to Chithra for £100, this may not be the market value of the car. However, the £100 will still be deemed to be of some value, hence valid consideration, making the promise to sell the car enforceable by Chithra. Any attack on the enforceability of the contract could be based around there was never any intention to create legal relations.

THE FINISHED ADVICE

This is how the advice will read:

Michael’s promise to sell the BMW

Michael promised to sell his 3 year old BMW car to Chithra for £100.00 as he won a new expensive car. The question is: was there sufficient consideration and can Chithra bring an action against Michael for this promise? Consideration must be sufficient. It can range from some form of payment to other interests of value under the law. Consideration must also be ‘adequate’, in terms of a bargain being made, although it is not imperative. Sufficiency remains of prime importance when forming a contract. A case authority establishing this principle is Thomas v Thomas , [1] where the court held that as long as there is valid consideration under the authority of Currie v Misa [2] then the agreement has some benefit or detriment to the parties. Furthermore in Chappel v Nestle , [3] the courts stated the chocolate wrappers purported consideration. It was held that the offer Nestle made for the exchange of chocolate wrappers provided that they were of some value. In advice to Michael, if Michael promised to sell his 3 year old BMW to Chithra for £100, this may not be the market value of the car. However, the £100 will still be deemed to be of some value, hence valid consideration, making the promise to sell the car enforceable by Chithra.

[1](1842) 2 Q.B. 851 [2]ibid [3] [1960] A.C. 87

IF YOU NEED LAW TUITION OR HELP WITH LAW ESSAY WRITING GET IN TOUCH

• CONTRACT LAW

Recent Posts

TOP 10 QUOTES ABOUT EDUCATION

HOW CAN A LAW TUTOR HELP YOU?

LAW EXAMS STAY ONLINE

Username or email  *

Password  *

Remember me --> Sign In

Forgotten password?

[email protected]

How To Use The IRAC Method To Excel In Your Law Essays

Find out how to tackle problem questions in your law exams using the IRAC method.

When it comes to writing essays for Law as a university student, you’ve probably read a lot about the typical ‘intro-main-body-conclusion’ essays. However, when it comes to black letter law subjects , these require a different type of approach. Here is how to approach problem questions using the IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) method.

What Is Black Letter Law?

Black letter law refers to areas of Law that consist mainly of technical rules, as opposed to areas of law that are defined more by a conceptual basis. Black letter law subjects include modules like tort law , criminal law , property law, etc. When it comes to examinations for these subjects they typically consist of problem questions and statement questions.

What Are Problem Questions?

In a problem question, you would probably be given a legal scenario and be tasked with explaining what the legal outcome would/should be. For example, there might be only one issue you are addressing or a series of legal issues in one given scenario.

In a statement question, you may be asked to analyse and/or give your opinions on judgments and legal concepts. For example, ‘Would you agree that xyz statute has incrementally progressed over the years?’ .

In an exam, you may have the choice to answer a number of questions picking how many you want to answer from the two types of questions. In this blog, I will be explaining how to approach problem questions.

What Is The IRAC Method?

The best way to approach problem statements as a beginner law student is the IRAC method: Issue, Rule, Application and Conclusion. This will allow you to give analytical answers that are clear and structured.

With an IRAC essay and problem questions in general, you do not have to write an introduction. You can go straight into answering the question – this is a key difference to statement questions.

For each of your points, you will start by stating the  legal issues  that arise in this scenario. 

When writing an issue statement, you can say something like, ‘The issue that first arises is if/whether…’. Then, you would complete the sentence by identifying and stating the legal conclusion that needs to be reached. For example, ‘The issue is whether the defendant is criminally liable for xyz’. 

After this, you would connect the issue statement to the relevant facts in the scenario. For example, ‘The defendant did xyz knowingly, therefore doing xyz to the claimant’. 

After writing your issue statement, you should identify and explain the rules that apply in this scenario and will ultimately define the/your legal conclusion. The  rule describes  which law or test applies to this issue.

So, this is where you would draw on your primary and secondary sources knowledge to support your analysis. It should be stated as a general principle for the scenario and not as a conclusion to the scenario being analysed – at least not just yet.

Study Law Guides

Check out our essential guides for Law students

Application

After stating the legal issues and relevant rules, now it is time to provide the main body of your analysis. In the application part of your answer, this is where you will explain how the legal principles you mentioned can be applied to your scenario, demonstrating your understanding of the law. 

In the application stage, you should constantly use key phrases from the legal principles mentioned. Do not worry about repeating your words – it is important to establish the connection.

You can also build the connection between the rules and your application by using connectives like ‘because’ and ‘since’. For example, ‘Here, the criminal can be considered independent of xyz because xyz…’ or ‘Since the defendant did xyz this breaks the causation chain of xyz’.

The key to application is not to simply regurgitate the rules but to successfully provide judgment based on the facts and rules.

When it comes to problem statements, there are two types of conclusions. The 1-2 sentences that conclude each issue explored and your final judgment.

In your brief  conclusion s, you can use one or two sentences to concisely state the outcome of the issue, based on the application of the rules to the facts of the case. For example, ‘Therefore, the defendant can be found criminally liable for xyz’.

In your final conclusion, you should first state your conclusion regarding each issue. Then, if applicable, you will provide your overall judgement. Like a normal essay, do not mention anything new that you have discussed (unless you perhaps forgot a point and are on a time crunch). Moreover, your conclusion should draw back to why you have come to this final judgment.

With answering these questions you should be assertive and plainly state your opinion. The journey to your judgment is the main part of your assessment, but it is your conclusion that brings your work together.

It is important to remember though that you will still get marks for your understanding and exploration of the law, so don’t feel discouraged if you don’t feel like you know the answer and answer to the best of your abilities. After all, the beauty of Law is subjectivity. 

In some cases, you may find that you can not come to a final judgement because the scenario needs more information. You may also find that your judgment is conditional on certain things. It is fine to state as so, and perhaps that is the answer. In general, however, if you can, you should come to a final decision.

Extra Points

After deciding that the IRAC method is the best to use and before even starting to write your response, you should spend time deeply analysing the problem. You should go through the statement and identify which parts will be relevant to each component of IRAC.

It is advisable to use something like different highlighters to identify each component. Make sure you can identify each part of IRAC in the statement before you actually start writing your response.

Key Takeaways

Before using the IRAC method you need to analyse if that is the most appropriate method for your exam/essay.

Find out more essay methods you can use here.

The goal is that as you start to become more experienced and knowledgeable as a Law student, you won’t answer your questions as rigidly and use a method that best works to your abilities. However, you can still get a great grade using the IRAC method to the letter and is advised by many legal academics.

Free Guides

Our free guides cover everything from deciding on law to studying and practising law abroad. Search through our vast directory.

Upcoming Events

Explore our events for aspiring lawyers. Sponsored by top institutions, they offer fantastic insights into the legal profession.

Join Our Newsletter

Join our mailing list for weekly updates and advice on how to get into law.

Law Quizzes

Try our selection of quizzes for aspiring lawyers for a fun way to gain insight into the legal profession!

PREVIOUS ARTICLE

Which A-Levels To Take If You Want To Study Law

NEXT ARTICLE

Mental Health Tips For University Students

Loading More Content

• High School
• You don't have any recent items yet.
• You don't have any modules yet.
• You don't have any books yet.
• You don't have any Studylists yet.
• Information

LW104 irac essay

Criminal law (m3007), university of sussex, recommended for you, students also viewed.

• After Woollin
• English contract law cases of 2022
• Law of Tort Seminar Two - Tort
• Criminal law essay 2
• Criminal law problem essay
• Criminal law

Related documents

• Chapter 1- Crime and Punishment
• Research-Dollhouse - nyjjjjjjjjjjjiju
• Criminal Law Seminars
• Exam 17 June 2014, questions and answers
• GNM essay - Grade: 1st
• Essay structure for exam

Related Studylists

Preview text.

[Start essay here]

Sarah and Carina have died. Because of this Mark could be liable for murder. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human with malice aforethought. 1

First we have to see if Mark satisfies the actus reus for murder. The actus reus is any conduct that causes the unlawful death of a person. Next, it must be shown that Mark’s conduct was the cause of Sarah’s death. For this requirement it must be shown that Mark’s conduct was the factual and legal cause of Sarah’s death. The test for factual causation is the ‘but for’ test, is established in the case of White. 2 But for Marks actions would Sarah have died? No, if it weren’t for Mark’s actions, Sarah would still be alive. For Legal causation Mark’s actions must considered to be substantial, blameworthy and operative in Sarah’s death. To be substantial means the defendant's role does not need to be the only cause, merely sufficient, as shown in Pagett, 3 but must more than minimal. The requirements for conduct to be considered blameworthy is given in Dalloway. 4 An Operative cause means there is no break in the chain of causations. If Mark had not confronted and grabbed Sarah by the throat she would not have died. Mark’s actions are substantial and his conduct is blameworthy for her death. Lastly, there were no intervening actions that would break the chain of causation. Therefore, Mark satisfies the Actus Reus element for murder.

Secondly we have to find if Mark satisfies the Mens Rea for the murder of Sarah. The requirements for mens rea is Malice aforethought; the intention to kill or cause grievous bodily harm to another person. Intention can be satisfied two different ways: Direct intention

1 Coke, Institutes III.7 (17 century) 2 White (1910) 2 KB 124 3 R v Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279 4 R v Dalloway (1847) 2 Cox CC 273

(DI) and oblique intention. DI covers intent to kill and cause GBH. DI does not need to be premeditated, only that Intention is present when the defendant acts. To determine if Mark had DI we must determine Mark’s aim, purpose and objective. Oblique intention covers when the result is foreseen by the defendant as virtually certain, although not the desired outcome, the ‘virtually certain’ test is used to determine if there was oblique intention, the authority on this is R v Woollin. 5 For the element of mens rea to be satisfied the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that Mark intended to kill Sarah. If the jury believes Mark had any intention, and if so whether it was direct or oblique. It is likely the jury will find that Mark satisfies the requirements for Mens rea, and that he had DI when he acted.

Next, If the jury finds that Mark satisfies both the actus reus and the mens rea for murder he could be entitled to/have a partial defence. If Mark satisfies the requirements for the partial defence he could be liable for voluntary manslaughter and not murder. Mark could use loss of control (LOC) as a partial defence. LOC is defined under section 54 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. It states that “Where a person kills another, they are not to be convicted of murder if— D's acts and omissions in doing or being a party to the killing resulted from D's loss of self-control, the loss of self-control had a qualifying trigger, and a person of D's sex and age, with a normal degree of tolerance and self-restraint and in the circumstances of D, might have reacted in the same or in a similar way to D.” 6 The LOC does not need to be sudden, 7 The LOC can even be where there is a delay given in Dawes. 8 Length of time between the qualifying trigger and the defendants actions that caused the death, is still relevant the longer the delay, the more difficult it is to argue for LOC, what happened during 5 R v Woollin [1999] AC 82 6 S(1) Coroners and Justice Act 2009 7 S(2) Coroners and Justice Act 2009 8 R. v Dawes [2013] EWCA Crim 322

manslaughter. He does not meet the requirements for unlawful act manslaughter (UAM) since there has been no base crime. Mark does not meet the requirements set for gross negligent manslaughter (GNM) either, since he had no duty of care towards Sarah. Mark does however possibly satisfy the requirements for reckless manslaughter( RM) are that Mark must have foreseen a risk of death or GBH risk must be highly significant and that the risk was unreasonably taken by Mark shown in Hyam, 9 however this is subjective and the court will decide if the risk of death or GBH is foreseeable. If the Jury finds that Mark has met these requirements he would be liable for RM.

For Carinas death, there is no intention therefore he is not liable for murder, but could be liable for UAM. There are 3 requirements for UAM; Mark committed a base crime. The act was objectively dangerous and that the act caused Carina’s death. The base crime present is Mark pushing Carina out of the way. Assault is any conduct by Mark that causes Carina to apprehend an imminent threat of violence, 10 in this case the conduct is the killing of Sarah. Battery is any conduct where Mark “inflicts unlawful personal violence” upon Carina. 11 Intention is present in both as he pushed Carina in order to flee. The base crime must be one that a reasonable person would recognise the risk of some harm resulting from the act. 12 In this case the base crime is the cause of death; but for Mark’s actions carina would not have fallen and hit her head. Marks conduct is substantive and blameworthy for Carina’s death. Mark satisfies the requirements for UAM and is liable for Involuntary manslaughter.

To conclude, Mark’s liability for Sarah’s death is dependent on if the Jury find that Mark satisfied the mens rea, if they believe he did he could be liable for Voluntary manslaughter

9 Hyam v DPP [1975] AC 55 10 John Child and David Omerod, Essentials of Criminal law (3rd edn, 2015) 221 11 John Child and David Omerod, Essentials of Criminal law (3rd edn, 2015) 224 12 Church [1966] 1 QB 59

with a partial defence of LOC, if they do not he could be found liable for Involuntary manslaughter of recklessness. His liability for Carina’s death is UAM and does not change depending on the variables.

Bibliography

Hyam v DPP [1975] AC 55 Church [1966] 1 QB 59 R v Woollin [1999] AC 82

R. v Dawes [2013] EWCA Crim 322

R v Pagett (1983) 76 Cr App R 279

R v Dalloway (1847) 2 Cox CC 273

White (1910) 2 KB 124

S(1) Coroners and Justice Act 2009 S(2) Coroners and Justice Act 2009

Coke, Institutes III.7 (17 century)

Child J. and Omerod , Essentials of Criminal law (3rd edn, 2015)

• Multiple Choice

Module : Criminal Law (M3007)

University : university of sussex.

• More from: Criminal Law M3007 University of Sussex 179   Documents Go to course
• More from: crim by Do oso 31 31 documents Go to Studylist

Popular Articles:

Example outline of an irac.

The IRAC is a four part writing method consisting of an Issue section, Rule Section, Application section, and Conclusion section. While this system may seem rigid, there is some room for flexibility which is sometimes needed in order to produce a readable answer. As for now, though, we will begin with a basic outline of an IRAC, below.

Issue:  State the legal issue(s) to be discussed.

Rule:  State the relevant statutes and case law.

Application:  Apply the relevant rules to the facts that created the issue.

Conclusion:  State the most likely conclusions using the logic of the application section. Don’t forget to include any alternative outcomes created by ambiguities in the relevant facts and rules.

Multiple-Issue IRAC

Most fact patterns that you will see throughout law school, and in life, will contain many different legal issues. While you could write multiple IRACs for multiple issues, the result will often be more readable and efficient (ie good for timed exams) if you combine intertwined issues into one mega-IRAC.

Note: You will see that I use the Issue section as an Umbrella section in the example below. I believe this helps the reader digest the subsequent information, but some disagree with me on that point and simply state the legal issues alone. 

Example Multiple-Issue IRAC

Under generic state law, Lucy is guilty of leaving the scene of an accident, but is likely justified in doing so due to the nature of the injury she sustained.

Under Public Act 9.98 “it is illegal for any involved party to leave the scene of a vehicular accident before police arrive”; Smith v. Smith held that “an involved party is defined as any person driving or riding in a vehicle involved in an accident”.

Public Act 9.99 states that “an involved party is justified in leaving an accident if seeking immediate & necessary medical treatment”. Another case, Jones v. Jones , states that “necessary medical treatment is any treatment that a reasonable person would deem necessary”.

Application:

Lucy was driving a car down a rural road and impacted another vehicle which was exiting a driveway. Lucy suffered a sprained wrist that developed severe swelling. A passerby drove Lucy to the nearest hospital before any police arrived on scene.

Because Lucy was driving a car that was involved in an accident, she is an “involved party” under under Smith v. Smith . Because she is an involved party and left the scene of the accident prior to police arriving, she meets the elements of PA9.98 and is likely guilty unless her actions are justified under PA9.99.

It is arguable that immediate medical treatment was not necessary for Lucy’s sprained wrist, thus she would not be justified in leaving the scene under PA9.99. Because Lucy’s wrist experienced severe swelling, she has a strong argument that she reasonably believed that her injuries were much worse than a sprain, and thus she was justified in leaving the scene under Jones v. Jones .

Conclusion:

Although Lucy meets all elements of PA9.98, leaving the scene of an accident, she will likely be deemed justified in leaving that scene due to the severe appearance of her injuries. If the court does not accept her argument, that she reasonably believed medical treatment was immediately necessary, she will be found guilty.