Tort Law: Analysis of Watkins v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Others.

Hello, I am looking for someone to write an article on Tort Law: Analysis of Watkins v Secretary of State for the Home Department and Others. It needs to be at least 3000 words. Jeffrey Shane Watkins appealed from the order of Judge Ibbotson in the Leeds County Court on 15 July 2003 dismissing his claim for damages for misfeasance in public office brought against the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Prison Officers Ravenscroft, Rosevere and Robinson, and eleven other prison officers. The facts are set out in the judgment of Brooke LJ.

Mr. Watkin made frequent complaints that he was being treated by prison officers in a manner that conflicted with the requirement of r37A (or r39, as the case might be). His private legal correspondence was being made public and opened by prison officers.

Mr. Watkins attempted to pursue the matter both through the formal prison complaints systems and the Prisons Ombudsman but failed to provide satisfactory explanation or evidence, and he was eventually granted legal aid to bring an action for damages in the courts. By his particulars, Mr. Watkins claimed damages for misfeasance in public office against the Home Office and 14 named prison officers. Judge Ibbotson sitting in the Leeds County Court on 15 July 2003 found that three prison officers had acted in bad faith when dealing with his legally-privileged correspondence. Nevertheless, the judge was not satisfied that Mr. Watkins had suffered any loss or damages such as constituted an essential ingredient of the tort of misfeasance in public office. Thus it was held that this tort was not actionable per se and the claim was subsequently dismissed. Despite no proof of damage, the claimant has the right of unimpeded access to the court. The three prison officers had maliciously infringed the claimant’s right to private legal correspondence, as laid out in accordance with r37A and thus the claimant’s cause of action in misfeasance in public office was complete. Thus the appeal was allowed. In September 1998, Prison Officer Ravenscroft informed Mr. Watkins that there were two legal letters for him. The legal paperwork marked r37A were already opened.&nbsp.&nbsp.

wellness&resilience

3 full pages of content no cover page· HW Post on Willpower and Distress Tolerance· Readings for Upcoming Lecture:· Hall (2012). Radical Acceptance: Sometimes problems can’t be solved. Psychology Today, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/pieces-mind/201207/radical-acceptance· If Your Goal in Therapy is to “Be Happy” You might Want to Rethink That. Here’s Why. https://everydayfeminism.com/2018/11/if-your-goal-in-therapy-is-to-be-happy-you-might-want-to-rethink-that-heres-why/· Required ViewingsHow Marsha Linehan Learned Radical Acceptance https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OTG7YEWkJFI

Discuss the effectiveness of early intensive behavioural intervention for autism.

Write a 5 pages paper on the effectiveness of early intensive behavioural intervention for autism. The model is based on the name of Ole Ivar Lovaas who had developed this model. In 1999, the United States Surgeon General’s office has been approving this therapy for treating small children having autism spectrum disorder (Callahan, Shukla-Mehta, Magee, & Wie, 2010).

The prime objective of the study is to describe certain important aspects in relation to the Lovaas model and how it provides support in EIBI therapy. Apart from this, the study reveals how young children having autism are benefitted with the application of EIBI. Contextually, the study will also focus on how EIBI is helpful in improving children’s quality of life with autism.

The Lovaas programme is recognised as a model which has been used as an EIBI therapy for assisting young children suffering from disorders such as spectrum autism. The model was invented by the University of California. This model has been developed for treating children with development-delays and autism. It is especially a time based intensive intervention that includes approximately 40 hours of time for proper treatment and intervention of children (Chasson, Harris, & Neely, 2007). Children belong to two to three years and more than two to three years of age are provided treatment with the use of the Lovaas model. The model is having two separate phases or processes for treating autism (Wolery, & Reichow, 2008). Initially, the Lovaas model focuses on an actual problem that can be experienced by the children. In this regard, the first step of this program is to focus on teaching for self-help as well as receptive language skills to the children. These factors will help the children to become more independent in their life. The second step of the intervention programme is to highlight significant features of language expressive teaching. Besides, the programme emphasises arranging interactive play with peers (Warren et al., 2015).