Flashcards
Statutory Interpretation CASES
Flashcards do conjunto (24)
- 1R V HARRIS (literal rule)It was an offence to 'cut, stab or wound' any person. Harris bit off the end of the V's nose. Under the literal rule, this was not an offence. NOT GUILTY
- 2WHITELEY V CHAPPELL (literal rule)It was an offence to 'impersonate any person entitled to vote'. The D pretended to be a dead person to use his vote. Using the literal rule, the D committed no offence as a dead person isn't entitled to vote. NOT GUILTY
- 3BERRIMAN (literal rule)A man was oiling tracks on a railway when killed by a train. His widow claimed there should've been a look out person in accordance with the RAILWAY EMPLOYMENT(PREVENTION OF ACCIDENTS) ACT 1990. This stated a lookout man is only provided for someone 'relaying or repairing' the track. Literally, the defendant was maintaining the track, not repairing. NO COMPENSATION WAS AWARDED.
- 4CUTTER V LEGAL INSURANCE (literal rule)Claimant was sitting in a friends car in a car park and was injured when lighter fuel exploded. Driver was insured for injury while on a 'road'. The definition of a road is 'leading from one place to another'. HELD: NO COMPENSATION AWARDED AS HE WASN'T INJURED ON A ROAD.
- 5R V ALLEN (Golden rule- NARROW)Charged with bigamy under the OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACt. Under the literal rule, this is an impossible task as you can't legally marry two people. Narrow rule was applied which stated the definition of marriage is 'to go through a marriage ceremony'. D WAS LIABLE.
- 6RE SIGWORTH (golden rule- WIDE)D murdered his mother but no will was made so the estate would've been inherited by the next of kin(ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES ACT 1925). Court didn't want a murderer to benefit from his crime. Wider rule was applied and detail was added to the act which said AN ISSUE COULD NOT BE INHERITED IF HE WAS THE MURDERER.
- 7ADLER V GEORGE (golden rule-wide)Under the OFFICIAL SECRETS ACT 1920 it was an offence to obstruct a member of armed forces 'in the vicinity' of a prohibited place. The D was within the place, not in the vicinity. It would be unfair to be guilty for being in the area and not actually inside. GUILTY.
- 8SMITH V HUGHES (mischief rule)used to interpet S1 STREET OFFENCES ACT 1959 which said it was an offence for a prostitute to loiter in a 'street or public place' for prostitution. Women attracted clients from windows and balconies. Court decided when passing the 1959 Act that parliament had intended to stop the nuisance. GUILTY.
- 9ROYAL COLLEGE OF NURSING V DHSS (mischief rule)nurses wanted to know if they were acting lawfully when administrating abortions. ABORTION ACT 1967 said it could only be done by a doctor. Courts held that nurses qualified as 'registered medical practioners' so could carry them out and the act was passed to prevent backstreet abortions
- 10CORKERY CARPENTER (mischief rule)D was found drunk in charge of a bicycle and was charged under the LICENSING ACT 1872 which provided that a person in charge of a 'carriage' on the road could be arrested. HELD GUILTY as the act was trying to avoid drunken people being in charge of transport.
- 11EX-PARTE SMITH (purposive approach)Smith was a violent murderer with mental health problems. He found out he was adopted and wanted to find his birth mother which he was entitled to under ADOPTION ACT 1976. He was refused the information as courts held that it would be contrary to the Act to give the information to someone who may cause harm.
- 12R(QUINTAVALLE) V SECRETARY OF STATE (purposive)Court had to decide whether embryos created by cell nuclear replacement were regulated by the HUMAN FERTILISATION AND EMBRYOLOGY ACT 1990. When the act was passed embryos could only be created the original way. HOL concluded that they were within the same genus of facts as the traditional embryos so research was allowed.
- 13JONES V TOWER BOOT (purposive)Black employee was abused physically and mentally so sued his employer under the RACE RELATIONS ACT 1976. Tribunal said that workers weren't acting 'in the course if their employment' as the employer wouldn't have permitted such activities in the contract. ON APPEAL IT WAS HELD THAT THE ACT WAS MADE TO ELIMINATE DISRCIMINATION SO EMPLOYERS WERE HELD LIABLE.
- 14BLACK CLAWSON CASE (Extrinsic aids-law commission reports)before 1975 courts couldn't look at reports when interpreting acts. This was relaxed in this case where it was held that courts may consult reports to discover the mischief or gap in the prior law which the current statute was aiming to rectify.
- 15FOTHERGILL V MONARCH AIRLINES (extrinsic aids- treaties and conventions)HOL decided that original conventions should be considered as during the translation of a convention into our legal system the original meaning may have been lost. Any court can consider materials in a convention.
- 16MENDOZA V GHIADAN (extrinsic aids-human rights)It was questioned whether same-sex couples had the same rights to take over tenancy under the RENT ACT 1977 when the partner had died. Earlier HOL decision held that heterosexual couples had different rights on rent. It was held that the act must be interpreted to comply with human rights so both should have the same rights. C of A ignored the earlier HOL decision which was made prior to the introduction of the HRA.
- 17DAVIS V JOHNSON (extrinsic aids- hansard)Involved the interpretation of the matrimonial proceedings act. Denning used hansard to make his judgement and the HOL disapproved of this and confirmed Judges cannot use this.
- 18PEPPER V HART (extrinsic aid-hansard)Used PS to overrule DAVIS V JOHNSON. Held that hansard can be used on limited occasions. Only Judge sitting on the appeal panel to disagree with this was the Lord Chancellor
- 19POWELL V KEMPTON PARK RACECOURSE (Ejusdem generis rule)An offence to take bets in a 'house, office or other place' under the BETTING ACT 1853. D was taking bets from an open air stand. HOL held that the category created in the Act only applied to indoor places. NOT GUILTY.
- 20ALLEN V EMMERSON (Ejusdem generis rule)Had to interpret 'theatres and other places of amusement' and decide if it applied to a funfair. There was only one specific word in the list so the funfair did come under 'other places of amusement' even though it wasn't in the same category as a theatre.
- 21TEMPEST V KILNER (expression unius exclusion alterius)A contract is required for sale of 'goods, wares and merchandise' of amounts of more than £10. It was held that 'stocks and shares' weren't included in the Act as the categories were final under the rule
- 22MUIR V KEAY (noscitur a sociis)Wording of refreshments had to be considered in the HOUSES ACT 1860. This act included 'public refreshment, resort and entertainment'. The D ran a café which supplied cigars, coffee and ginger beer. The D didn't hold the required license. It was held that 'entertainment' meant the 'reception of people' so was GUILTY.
- 23LEACH V R (presumption against change in common law)Courts were faced with question of whether a wife could be made to give evidence against her husband under the CRIMINAL EVIDENCE ACT 1984. Act didn't state this was the case and common law was that she couldn't be made to.
- 24SWEET V PARSLEY (presumption that mens rea is required)D rented house to students who grew cannabis and smoked it. D had no knowledge of this but was convicted. Act didn't state that mens rea was required but there's a presumption of it unless stated differently.
Informações
- Descrição
- AS - Level Law FlashCards sobre Statutory Interpretation CASES, criado por Lucy Sheard em 02-04-2016.
- Criado por
- Lucy Sheard · abr 2016
- Atualizado
- 18 mai 2016
- Visualizações
- 3
- Avaliação