Quiz
Ohne Titel
Dieses Quiz enthält Fragetypen, die sich im gewohnten Player öffnen.
Fragen in diesem Quiz (58)
1“ Even if the meaning of the text may appear plain in isolation of [blank_start]purpose[blank_end], that meaning should always be [blank_start]cross[blank_end] [blank_start]checked[blank_end] against [blank_start]purpose[blank_end]” [blank_start]Commerce[blank_end] Commission v [blank_start]Fonterra[blank_end] [200[blank_start]7[blank_end]] 3 NZLR 767 ([blank_start]Supreme[blank_end] Court)
- Apurpose
- Bcross
- Cchecked
- Dpurpose
- EFonterra
- FCommerce
- G7
- HSupreme
2Canons of interpretation
- AThe Golden rule
- BThe Literal rule
- CThe Mischief rule
- DThe Supreme Authority rule
- EThe Consistency rule
3The literal rule – apply [blank_start]literal[blank_end] (ordinary/natural) meaning
- Aliteral
4The golden rule – apply [blank_start]extraordinary[blank_end] meaning to avoid [blank_start]absurdity[blank_end] (in e[blank_start]xceptional[blank_end] cases)
- Aabsurdity
- Bextraordinary
- Cxceptional
5The mischief rule – [blank_start]suppress[blank_end] the mischief, advance the [blank_start]remedy[blank_end]
- Asuppress
- Bremedy
6Examples of STRAINING or EXTENDING meaning
- AHutton v Hutton (1910) (gambling activities “in the street”)
- BR v Clayton [1973] (driving while disqualified - helping to steer a car = “driving")
- CR v MacDonagh [1974] (pushing a car towards the curb; charged with “driving” it.)
- DKaiser v Police (2007) (offence to drive “under the influence” of drug)
- EEx parte Goddard (1940) (statute permitted killing of “any animal”)
7NARROW or BROAD reading
- AKaiser v Police (2007) (offence to drive “under the influence” of drug)
- BR v Rua [2008] (unlawful to “manufacture” a prohibited drug)
- CR v Clayton [1973] (helping to steer a car = “driving”)
- DR v Federal Steam Navigation Co [1974] (“owner or master” of a ship)
8Substituting words
- AR v Federal Steam Navigation Co [1974] (“owner or master” of a ship was to be liable for the relevant offence )
- BR v Oakes [1959] (“any person who aids or abets and does any act preparatory to the commission of an offence”)
- CR v Cara [2005] (right/ability to enter other countries using the false passport a “service”)
- DR v Rua [2008] (unlawful to “manufacture” a prohibited drug.)
9Adding words
- AEx parte Goddard (1940) (statute permitted killing of “any animal”)
- BPolice v Emirali [1976] (“possession of a narcotic”)
- CR v Oakes [1959] (“any person who aids or abets and does any act preparatory to the commission of an offence”)
10Omitting words
- AMcMonagle v Westminster City Council [1990] (premises at which performances which are not unlawful are given)
- BPolice v Emirali [1976] (“possession of a narcotic”)
- CR v MacDonagh [1974] (defendant pushing a car towards the curb; “driving” it)
- DR v Federal Steam Navigation Co [1974] (“owner or master” of a ship)
11Gap-filling:
[blank_start]North[blank_end]land Milk [blank_start]Vendors[blank_end] v Northern [blank_start]Milk[blank_end] Ltd
The Milk Act 1967 was replaced by the Milk Act 1988.
The Court of Appeal filled this gap by reference to a number of different provisions in the Act – essentially by looking at the scheme of the Act.- AVendors
- BMilk
- CNorth
12Error correction
- AInco Europe v First Choice Distribution [2000]
- BR v Salmond (1992)
- CR v Cara [2005]
- DMinistry of Fisheries v Vu [2011]
13Examples of PURPOSIVE ruling in cases
- AR v Salmond (1992)
- BR v Cara [2005]
- CMinistry of Fisheries v Vu [2011]
- DCAA v Witschke-Rudd [2015]
- EAbrahams v Cavey [1968]
- FMcMonagle v Westminster City Council [1990]
14Examples of Associated Words Rule (Noscitur a Sociis)
- AAbrahams v Cavey [1968]
- BCAA v Witschke-Rudd [2015]
- CR v Salmond (1992)
- DHolly v Andrew [1992]
- EHutton v Hutton (1910)
15Examples of limited class rule (“ejusdem generis”)
- AOtley v Armstrong [1938] (“Factory” was defined as “any building, office or place” )
- BCAA v Witschke-Rudd [2015] (“…any fraudulent, misleading, or intentionally false statement…” in order to gain a medical certificate)
- CPolice v Emirali [1976] (“possession of a narcotic” )
16USE OF LEGISLATIVE/PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY IN ASCERTAINING PURPOSE
- AR v Cara [2005] use of the explanatory note to the Transnational Organised Crime Bill 2002, part of which became the Crimes Amendment Act 2002.
- BCAA v Witschke-Rudd [2015] use of the explanatory note to the Transnational Organised Crime Bill 2002, part of which became the Crimes Amendment Act 2002.
- CR v Rua [2008] use of the explanatory note to the Transnational Organised Crime Bill 2002, part of which became the Crimes Amendment Act 2002.
17Legal authorities for the purposive approach:
- ASection 5(1) of the Interpretation Act 1999
- BThe Commerce Commission v Fonterra case
- CR v Salmond
- DMoF v Vu
- ER v Cara
- FInco Europe v First Choice Distribution
- GMcMonagle v Westminster City Council
- HKaiser v Police
18In New Zealand, the Courts take a [blank_start]purposive[blank_end] approach to statutory interpretation.
- Apurposive
19Section [blank_start]5[blank_end](1) of the Interpretation Act 19[blank_start]99[blank_end] (“IA”) states that the meaning of an enactment must be ascertained from its text and in the light of its [blank_start]purpose[blank_end].
- A5
- B99
- Cpurpose
20In the Fonterra case (200[blank_start]7[blank_end]), the Supreme Court confirmed that a [blank_start]purposive[blank_end] approach is the correct one.
- Apurposive
- B7
21Even if the meaning of the statutory text appears plain in [blank_start]isolation[blank_end], it must always be [blank_start]cross[blank_end]-checked with a wider view of [blank_start]purpose[blank_end] to make sure the “dual requirements” of s 5(1) are complied with. (The Commerce Commission v Fonterra 2007)
- Aisolation
- Bcross
- Cpurpose
22[blank_start]Fundamental[blank_end] legal values:
Examples include freedom of [blank_start]expression[blank_end], the primacy of [blank_start]private[blank_end] [blank_start]property[blank_end] rights and the [blank_start]liberty[blank_end] of the individual citizen.- Aexpression
- Bfundamental
- Cprivate
- Dproperty
- Eliberty
- Fspeech
- Gland
- Hstatutory
- Iabsolute
- Jhuman rights
23NZBORA
Section [blank_start]13[blank_end] – freedom of thought, conscience and religion- A13
24NZBORA
Section [blank_start]14[blank_end] – freedom of expression- A14
25NZBORA
Section [blank_start]21[blank_end] – the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure- A21
26NZBORA
Section [blank_start]16[blank_end] – freedom of peaceful assembly- A16
27NZBORA
Section [blank_start]23[blank_end] – rights of people arrested or detained- A23
28s [blank_start]4[blank_end] -NZ BORA IS NOT SUPREME LAW. NZBORA has no application so far as it is [blank_start]inconsistent[blank_end] with the other legislation.
- A4
- Binconsistent
29Section [blank_start]6[blank_end] of NZBORA says: 6 Interpretation consistent with Bill of Rights to be preferred
Wherever an enactment can be given a meaning that is [blank_start]consistent[blank_end] with the rights and freedoms contained in this Bill of Rights, that meaning shall be preferred to any other meaning.- A6
- Bconsistent
30In the case of R v Noort [1992]
- AThe court reading was consistent with NZBORA
- BThe court reading was inconsistent with NZBORA
- CThe court reading was able to be blended with NZBORA
31Brooker v Police [2007] Example of case where rights-consistent (NZBORA-friendly) reading found to be possible.
- ARichtig
- BFalsch
32Quilter v A-G [1998] Example of case where rights-consistent (NZBORA-friendly) reading found to be possible.
- ARichtig
- BFalsch
33R v Munks [1964], “…spring gun, mantrap or other engine calculated to cause grievous bodily harm.”
- AAn example of narrow/limiting interpretation of penal statutes (PRESUMPTION INTERPRETATION)
- BAn example of a broad reading in order to recognize purpose
34R v Pora: Presumption of interpretation: prospective application of law
- ARichtig
- BFalsch
35 R v Pratt [1990] found that the purposive aproach rules over presumptions of interpretation
- ARichtig
- BFalsch
36McMonagle v Westminster City Council [1990]
A “sex encounter establishment” was defined in the Act as a “premises at which performances which are not unlawful are given…which wholly or mainly comprise the sexual stimulation of persons admitted to the premises.”
McMonagle argued that the Act could not apply to his establishment because the performances in his strip club were unlawful (because they were unlicensed) and the Act only applied to places where lawful performances were given.
Court ruled:- AIn McMonagle's favour
- BAgainst McMonagle
37R v Federal Steam Navigation Co [1974]
The Act said the “owner or master” of a ship was to be liable for the relevant offence (discharging oil). But there was no way to tell whether it should be the owner or the master in any particular case, so the provision was held to mean that the “owner and master” were to be liable.- AOwner was liable
- BMaster was liable
- CNeither was liable
- DOwner and Master were liable
38Narrow or broad reading
Kaiser v Police (HC, Auck, 30/11/07, Cooper J)
Section 58(1) Land Transport Act 1998 – an offence to drive “under the influence” of drug. K was under the influence of methadone, but only indirectly.- ACourt used a narrow reading
- BCourt used a broad reading
39R v Clayton [1973]
Transport Act 1962 - driving while disqualified - helping to steer a car = “driving”?
Court ruled:- AYes this was driving
- BNo this was not driving
40Hutton v Hutton (1910)
Bets taken in a doorway off the street. Offence to be involved in gambling activities “in the street”.- AConvicted of the offence
- BNot convicted
41R v Clayton [[blank_start]1973[blank_end]]
- A1973
42R v [blank_start]Clayton[blank_end] [1973]. An example of strained/extended meaning.
Driving while disqualified - helping to [blank_start]steer[blank_end] a car = “driving”? Held: yes, this was driving.- AClayton
- Bsteer
43[blank_start]Kaiser[blank_end] v Police (2007)
An example of a [blank_start]narrow[blank_end] reading.
An offence to [blank_start]drive[blank_end] “under the influence” of drug. K[blank_start]aiser[blank_end] was under the influence of methadone, but only indirectly.- AKaiser
- Baiser
- Cnarrow
- Ddrive
44R v [blank_start]Federal[blank_end] Steam [blank_start]Navigation[blank_end] Co [19[blank_start]74[blank_end]]
An example of substitution.
The Act said the “owner or master” of a ship was to be liable for the relevant offence (discharging oil). But there was no way to tell whether it should be the owner or the master in any particular case, so the provision was held to mean that the “owner [blank_start]and[blank_end] master” were to be liable.- A74
- BFederal
- CNavigation
- Dand
45Ex [blank_start]parte[blank_end] Goddard (19[blank_start]40[blank_end])
An example of adding words.
Statute permitted killing of “any [blank_start]animal[blank_end]” – held to mean “any wild animal reasonably capable of being regarded as noxious”- Aparte
- B40
- Canimal
46[blank_start]Police[blank_end] v Emirali [197[blank_start]6[blank_end]]
An example of adding words.
“possession of a narcotic” – s 6(1) Narcotics Act 1965 – having tiny, unusable quantities of cannabis could not form the basis of a conviction – Court said the offence was “possession of a narcotic in useable quantities”- A6
- BPolice
47McMonagle v [blank_start]Westminster[blank_end] City Council [[blank_start]1990[blank_end]]
- AWestminster
- B1990
48R v [blank_start]Salmond[blank_end] (19[blank_start]92[blank_end])
HC held relevant sections did not permit the blood spatter analysis that had been done (but the HC also said that this evidence was not obtained unfairly, so it could be used at the trial anyway, ie, it was admissible evidence despite the breach of the Act).
Defendant appealed.
Court of Appeal held that a blood sample taken under s 58D could be used in any way that advanced the underlying purpose of the Transport Act.- ASalmond
- B92
49
[blank_start]R[blank_end] v [blank_start]Cara[blank_end] [20[blank_start]05[blank_end]]
They were charged under the Crimes Act 1961 with:
Dishonestly, and without claim of right, attempting to obtain a document with the intention of (thereby) obtaining a “service”
No doubt that a passport was a “document”. But was the right/ability to enter other countries using the false passport a “service”- AR
- BCara
- C05
50Ministry of Fisheries v Vu [[blank_start]2011[blank_end]]
- A2011
51Abrahams v [blank_start]Cavey[blank_end] [[blank_start]1968[blank_end]]
Prohibition on “riotous, violent or [blank_start]indecent[blank_end] behaviour” in a church – defendant was heckling an MP who was reading a lesson during a church service – was this “indecent” behaviour?- ACavey
- B1980
- C2001
- D1974
- E1993
- FCara
- GPolice
- HR
- IMcMonagle
- J1968
- Kindecent
- Linappropriate
52NZBORA
- Section [blank_start]13[blank_end] – freedom of thought, conscience and religion
- Section [blank_start]14[blank_end] – freedom of expression
- Section [blank_start]21[blank_end] – the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure
- Section [blank_start]16[blank_end] – freedom of peaceful assembly
- Section [blank_start]23[blank_end] – rights of people arrested or detained- A13
- B14
- C21
- D16
- E23
- F24
- G26
- H15
53R v M[blank_start]unks[blank_end] [[blank_start]1964[blank_end]]
Example of narrow/limiting interpretation of penal statutes.
Set a “…spring gun, mantrap or other engine calculated to cause grievous bodily harm.” Munks set electrified wires from light socket to his window frames – burglar got electrocuted. The Court held the wires were not an ‘engine’.- A1964
- Bunks
54Freedom of expression is a fundamental legal value
- ARichtig
- BFalsch
55Otley v [blank_start]Armstrong[blank_end] [19[blank_start]38[blank_end]]
Example of LIMITED [blank_start]CLASS[blank_end] RULE
“Factory” was defined as “any building, office or place” in which people were employed in handicraft – so, were people working in an open-air timber yard working in a “place” (and therefore factory workers)?- ACLASS
- BArmstrong
- C38
56Otley v Armstrong [1938] is an example of LIMITED CLASS RULE
- ARichtig
- BFalsch
57Otley v Armstrong [1938] is an example of the INCLUSION/EXCLUSION RULE
- ARichtig
- BFalsch
58Otley v Armstrong [1938] is an example of ASSOCIATED WORDS RULE
- ARichtig
- BFalsch
Informationen
- Beschreibung
- Quiz am Ohne Titel, erstellt von Caitlin Buchanan am 23/06/2017.
- Autor
- Caitlin Buchanan
- Sprache
- English
- Aufrufe
- 0
- Bewertung
- Noch keine Bewertungen Bewerte dieses Quiz