10.2 Reading
identifying stance and level of confidence • inferring implicit ideas
A Study the sentence on the right. Each phrase in box a could go in the space. What effect would
each one have on the base meaning? Mark from *** = very confident to * = very tentative.
B Survey the text on the opposite page. 1 What will the text be about?
2 Write three research questions. C Read the text. Does it answer your questions?
D Answer these questions. 1 Do the courts consider involuntary manslaughter to be a major or a minor offence?
2 What were the relevant facts in R v Franklin as far as the court was concerned?
3 What precedent did R v Franklin establish?
4 What is the significance of the defendant’s occupation in R v Adomako?
5 In what way was the defendant in R v Seymour reckless?
‘
6 ‘I didn’t want to kill him. I didn’t even see him there!’ Is this a good defence? Why (not)?
E Find the phrases in box b in the text. Is the writer confident (C) or tentative (T) about
the information which follows? In the English law of homicide, | manslaughter | is
F Read the article on the death of a train guard taken from a tabloid newspaper on page 105.
1 Underline the marked words.
2 What does the choice of these words tell you about the train guard widow’s opinion of the way the case was handled?
3 Find neutral words to use in their place.
G Study the example sentence on the right, and then sentences A and B.
1 Divide sentences A and B into small parts, as in the example sentence.
2 Underline any joining words (e.g., conjunctions).
3 Find the subjects, verbs, objects/complements and adverbial phrases which go together.
4 Make several short simple sentences which show the meaning.
80 B
Involuntary manslaughter occurs when the accused did not intend to cause death or serious injury, but death resulted because that person was reckless or grossly negligent.
A
Voluntary manslaughter is where the accused intentionally kills another, but is not liable for murder because there are mitigating circumstances such as provocation or diminished responsibility.
| a less serious offence | than murder, | with | the law | differentiating between | the levels of fault | based on | the mens rea.
b
The robbers’ verbal threats and physical intimidation the heart attack which led to the death of the cashier.
a probably caused may have contributed to
was possibly one of the factors which contributed to
could have been a factor which led to caused
seems to have caused It is obvious …
Many writers seem to agree … This case appears to demonstrate …
many writers have claimed … It is worth noting … Clearly …
Example:
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139
