Using the ILAC Method to Solve Problem Questions

James is an A-Level Law and Politics Examiner with 20 years of Further Education experience, 16 years of examining experience with Pearson, and Advanced Teacher Status. Currently Head of Curriculum and Skills at a Further Education College, he has taught Law, Politics, History and Business Studies.

Here, he draws on his examining experience to explain the one method that consistently separates strong A-Level Law answers from the rest.

How to Solve Legal Problems in A-Level Law Exams

By James | A-Level Law and Politics Examiner | Sherpa Tutor

Over the years, as an examiner and a teacher of A Level Law, I have seen many approaches to solving legal problem questions. 

However, one method stands head and shoulders above the rest. The ILAC method. 

ILAC stands for:

• Issue 
• Law
• Application 
• Conclusion

ILAC allows students to deal with each constituent part of a problem effectively, thereby ensuring synthesis and maximising marks.

Here is an example from Criminal Law.

The Scenario

Arthur stabs Ben during an argument. Ben goes to the hospital, where a doctor makes a clear mistake with the medicine. Ben dies, and experts argue that this was due to the medical mistake.

Discuss the liability of Arthur for the murder of Ben.

Issue

The issue in this scenario relates to the murder of Ben, with particular reference to the actus reus of murder and causation.

This clearly tells the examiner that the student has correctly identified the legal issues to which the problem relates.

Law

The actus reus of murder is unlawful killing. Where a consequence must be proved, causation requires showing that the defendant was the factual cause (R v White), the legal cause (R v Kimsey), and that there were no intervening acts to break the chain of causation (R v Smith).

Here, the law has been identified and explained with supporting authority.

Application

To prove Arthur's liability for the actus reus of murder, the element of unlawful killing must be established. 

To prove factual causation, the 'but for' test needs to be applied: but for Arthur stabbing Ben, would he have died? The answer is no, as it was the poor medical treatment that killed Ben and not the stab wound.

To prove legal causation, Arthur must be more than a minimal cause of death, though this does not have to be substantial. It could be argued that Arthur is not even a minimal cause of death, as it was the poor medical treatment that resulted in Ben's death.

Finally, there must be no intervening act that breaks the chain of causation. This clearly relates to the act of a third party, the doctor. Smith states that medical treatment must be so separate and independent from the original act that it amounts to an intervening act. It is clear that the act of the doctor making a serious mistake with the medicine is sufficient to break the chain of causation.

Here, the law is applied in detail to the scenario, dealing with each aspect of causation.

Conclusion

Arthur does not satisfy the actus reus of murder, namely unlawful killing. This is because the doctor's mistake with the medicine amounted to an intervening act, breaking the chain of causation.

This conclusion clearly states the outcome of the legal problem and links back to the scenario.

When all of this is written into one paragraph as part of a wider essay, each element (the actus reus of murder here) becomes a mini-essay in its own right. 

It is clear and synthesised, ensuring all legal elements are thoroughly discussed, thereby maximising your overall marks.