Creado por Ellen Worrall
hace más de 8 años
|
||
Pregunta | Respuesta |
What is the literal rule? | Words in statute must be given their plain, ordinary/literal meaning to discover PARLIAMENTS INTENT expressed in the words used, even if it leads to ABSURDITY |
Whitley v Chapel | * Pretended to be a deceased person to use their vote * Offence to impersonate anyone entitled to vote * Literal meaning = DEAD PEOPLE CANNOT VOTE, therefore no offence |
LNER v Berrimen | * Husband killed whilst working on tracks. Compensation only available if relaying/repairing the tracks (V was oiling them) * AO2: absurd outcome |
Cutter v Eaglestar insurance | * Can of lighter fuel exploded over claimant in car park * Insurance company didn't pay out; only insures injuries on a road |
Cheeseman | * Police arrested man touching himself in railway toilets. (Offence = causing offence to passengers) * Police not passengers so no offence |
Fisher v Bell | * Flick knife in window display of shop. * Offence = selling a flick knife * D argued that it wasn't on sale, but an "INVITATION TO TREAT" * Not guilty |
Why is the literal rule the preferred rule of judges? | Respects words that have been used by Parliament & means judges don't have to rewrite law |
What did Lord Esher state in R v Judge of the city of London? | Have to accept absurdity |
Why was the golden rule created? | To avoid absurdity where possible (Lord Wenslydale). Stays within what the law intended to do but doesn't modify it to change intention |
What is the narrow view in the golden rule? | Looking at the word from other meanings |
What is the broader view in the golden rule? | Used to avoid a wrong outcome |
R v Allen | * Bigamy case. * Under the literal rule = not guilty. Person cannot get married who is already married. * Golden rule questioned meaning of 'marry' (a ceremony of marriage was found to be sufficient) |
R v Sigsworth | * Killed mother then killed himself * Courts = shouldn't inherit where he killed the deceased (shouldn't benefit from crimes) * Therefore family had nothing to inherit from him |
Alder v George | * Protesting inside HM Forces in prohibited place (outside army base) * "In the vicinity of" meant in/near the place * Courts wish to find DD guilty, interpret law subjectively (AO2) |
What is the mischief rule? | Where the courts look at what the mischief that the law was trying to prevent when the statute was first written |
Hayden's case (1584) 4 points | 1. What was the common law prior to the act 2. What was the mischief/defect with the common law 3. What remedy did Parliament provide to resolve it 4. Function of the judge is to make sure mischief is surpressed |
Smith v Hughes | * Women soliciting from a balcony * Arrested under Street Offences Act for soliciting * Guilty = mischief aimed at was people being molested/solicited by prostitutes whilst they were on the street * Widens the act |
Royal College of Nursing v DHSS | * Abortion can only be carried out by a doctor (1st part = doctor, 2nd part was done by unsupervised nurse) * Parliament trying to remedy back street abortions performed by unqualified people * Not guilty |
Corkey v Carpenter | * Drunk in charge of a "carriage" on the highway under the Highway Act then guilty * D was drunkenly riding bicycle * "Carriage" interpreted to be some form of transport * Aim of Parliament was to stop mischief on the highway |
DPP V Bull | * Male escort charged with loitering/soliciting * Courts = "prostitute" was limited to female prostitutes * Mischief was attempting to remedy mischief caused by women |
What is the purposive approach? 2 points | * Very similar to mischief rule however it tries to identify in advance what the criminal activity is * What was the purpose of the words in the statute? |
Jones v Tower Boot Co Ltd | * Complainant suffered racial discrimination for which the employers were liable under statute * CA = acts of discrimination were committed "in the course of employment" |
¿Quieres crear tus propias Fichas gratiscon GoConqr? Más información.