Arguments in Court - cyber crime and data protection cases
Basic structure of legal argument (1) If conditions A, B and C are satisfied, then legal consequences X, Y and Z follow. (Major premise: legal rule) (2) Conditions A, B and C are satisfied (or not). (Minor Premise: the facts of the case) (3) Therefore, legal consequences X, Y and Z do (or do not) follow. (Conclusion: legal judgment in the case). As I mentioned in part one, the first premise of this argument structure tends to get most of the attention in law schools. The second premise — establishing the actual facts of the case — tends to get rather less attention. This is unfortunate for at least three reasons. First, in practice, establishing the facts of a case is often the most challenging aspect of a lawyer’s job. Lawyers have to interview clients to get their side of the story. They have to liaise with other potential witnesses to confirm (or disconfirm) this story. Sometimes they will need to elicit expert opinion, examine the locus in quo (scene of the crime/events) and a...