30 sept 2024 Flashcards
A thief is charged with theft, an either way offence. The thief believes that a jury will be more likely to acquit them, and thus wants a jury to hear their case.
In which court would the thief get a jury trial in their criminal case?
In the Crown Court only.(C) An either way offence may be heard in either the Crown Court or the Magistrates’ Court if the defendant agrees to be tried without a jury. Given that the thief wants a jury trial, the case must be heard in the Crown Court only. (A) and (E) are incorrect because the High Court does not hear criminal cases in the first instance. (The Administrative Court may entertain appeals of criminal cases in certain circumstances.) (A) is also incorrect because, as noted, a jury trial is not available in Magistrates’ Court. (B) and (D) are incorrect, again as noted, jury trials are not available in Magistrates’ Court.
An import duty was imposed on ‘cuticle knives, corn knives, nail files, tweezers, and forceps’. A jewelry store owner did not want to pay the duty on an expensive pair of jewelers’ tweezers. The court held that the term ‘tweezers’ did not include ‘jewelers’ tweezers.’
Which rule of language did the court most likely use to come to this judgement?
Noscitur a sociis.(D) This phrase stands for the doctrine that the company interprets a word it keeps. That is, when interpreting a statute, courts consider the words in the same section as the word in dispute. In other words, courts consider the context. In this case, the items listed were all used for manicures and pedicures (that is, care of fingernails and toenails), and the jewelers’ tweezers did not fit into this group. (A) is incorrect because under this legal maxim, if one or more things of a class are expressly mentioned in a statute, the things not mentioned are excluded. Here, tweezers were mentioned. (B) is incorrect because corpus juris secondum means ‘second body of law’ and is not a rule of interpretation. (C) is incorrect because in pari materia is a rule of language that considers other statutes on the same subject to interpret the statute in question. Since we have no other statute here to help, this rule is not helpful here. (E) is tempting but not the best answer. Ejusdem generis is not helpful here as it is used to interpret the meaning of a general word when more specific words follow it. The items listed seem to be more general in nature.
A defendant is found liable by the High Court, Queen’s Bench Division in a civil case involving a complex novel tort claim. The defendant properly appealed the judgment to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision and the way the High Court handled the novel tort claim.
Which of the following statements best describes the binding effect of the ratio decidendi of the Court of Appeal’s decision?
The ratio decidendi of the Court of Appeal’s decision will bind UK lower courts when they deal with a similar claim unless the facts can be distinguished.(D) This is the foundation principle of English common law; namely, that lower courts must follow the ratio decidendi (that is, the parts of the case essential to the court’s decision) of higher courts when hearing claims similar to the claims heard by the higher courts unless the facts of the case in the lower court can be distinguished. (A) and (B) are incorrect because they are too broad. The Supreme Court is not bound by the Court of Appeal regardless of the facts of the case. (C) is incorrect as the Court of Appeal does not always bind itself. (E) is incorrect because it is false in that the ratio decidendi of the Court of Appeal will bind lower courts. QUESTION ID: ELS106
QUESTION ID: ELS106
A defendant has been accused of assault, which is a summary offence. The defendant pleaded not guilty and their case was tried in the Magistrates’ Court. The defendant was convicted and now wishes to appeal based on a non-procedural error.
Which of the following is the correct appeal route the case would take?
Crown Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court.(B) Cases heard in the Magistrates’ Court are appealed to the Crown Court, then to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division), and finally to the Supreme Court, provided the case involves a point of law of public importance and that leave to appeal has been granted. (A) is incorrect because a case must be appealed to the Court of Appeal before the Supreme Court. (C) is incorrect because the first route of appeal in a criminal case heard in Magistrates’ Court is usually the Crown Court. Also, the High Court will hear appeals in criminal cases only in relation to procedural matters, that is, if it appears the magistrate incorrectly applied procedure, such as denying admissible evidence. There is nothing in the facts to suggest that this was the case. (D) is incorrect because the appeal should go to the Crown Court or High Court (if appropriate) before the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. (E) is incorrect for similar reasons as (C). The Crown Court generally is the first court that hears an appeal from the Magistrates’ Court. QUESTION ID: ELS101
A solicitor in a law firm is assisting on an appeal of one of the firm’s cases. The solicitor was asked to find cases that are binding precedent on the case, and the solicitor has to decide what weight to give the obiter dicta and ratio decidendi of the cases.
Which of the following best states the effect of obiter dicta and ratio decidendi?
Obiter dicta is a court statement regarding a matter not necessary to the court’s decision and so the statement does not create binding precedent.(C) Obiter dicta (also known simply as obiter) is a term used to describe statements a court makes that are not necessary to the court’s decision; essentially, they are said “by the way”. Therefore, obiter remarks do not have a binding precedential effect, although it may be used as persuasive authority. (A) is incorrect because ratio decidendi (also known simply as ratio) is a term used to describe court statements that are essential to the court’s decision; that is, statements directly related to the legal reasoning upon which a decision is based. Ratio has a binding precedential effect. The choices suggesting that the obiter forms binding precedent (choices (B), (D), and (E)) are, therefore, incorrect. QUESTION ID: ELS112
QUESTION ID: ELS112
Question
To combat the rise in drug addiction, a statute made it an offence to sell illegal drugs on the street or in public. A man sold drugs from their balcony, attracting the attention of passersby by banging a cooking pan on their metal railing and directing any agreeing passersby to a nearby door to buy illegal drugs.
The man’s actions soon drew the attention of the local police. A police officer dressed in street clothes indicated he had an interest in buying illegal drugs, the man directed him to the nearby door, and the police officer paid the man money and received a packet of cocaine from the man. The police officer then arrested the man and he was charged with selling illegal drugs on the street in violation of the statute.
A judge found the man to be guilty of the offence after looking at debates contained in Hansard.
On which of the following rules of interpretation was the judge most likely relying?
The Purposive Approach.(A) Under the Purposive Approach, the court will look at documents extraneous to the statute to determine why the statute was passed. Here, the court looked at the Hansard, which is a secondary source, to determine the meaning of the statute, and so this approach was used. (B) is incorrect because the ejusdem generis doctrine is a rule of language interpretation providing that when a general word follows more specific words, the court should give the general word a similar meaning as the specific words. (C) is incorrect as under the Literal Rule, when interpreting statutes, courts will give words their ordinary meaning. In other words, the court will apply the dictionary meaning to the words to resolve any ambiguity. Here, had the statute been applied literally, the man could not have been convicted because he was on private property and not on the street or in a public place. (D) is incorrect. Under the Golden Rule, the court uses something other than a word’s ordinary meaning to avoid an absurd result. Rather than doing that, the judge in this question looked at a secondary source. (E) is incorrect. Sometimes, a statute is written in such a way as to create a loophole in the law that was clearly unintended. When that happens, the Mischief Rule allows the judge to close the loophole by applying a commonsense meaning to a word. That did not happen here; rather, the judge consulted a secondary sourc
A statute provides that a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road or other public place unless there is an insurance policy in force. A man had parked their car on the road, but they removed the car’s tires and placed the car on blocks. The man would go out every night to listen to the car’s radio. The man cancelled the car’s insurance after a couple of months.
One afternoon, a cyclist crashed into the car with sufficient force that it slipped off one of the blocks and crushed the cyclist’s ankle.
When it was discovered that an insurance policy was not in place for the car, the man was charged with violation of the statute, and the judge in the case found him guilty.
Which statutory rule of interpretation did the judge most likely apply in determining that the man was using the car on a public road?
The Mischief Rule.(D) A court applying the Mischief Rule of interpretation determines what mischief the statute in question was set out to remedy and interprets the statute in a way that would best achieve that result. If the man was found guilty under the statute, it would be because the court found the statute was intended to require insurance of any vehicle that could potentially be a hazard on the road, and a parked car meets this definition. (A) is incorrect because there is no such approach. The Latin phrase here means ‘second body of law’. (B) is incorrect because under the Purposive Approach, a court uses extraneous material from the pre-enactment phase of legislation to try to discern the meaning of the words used in the statute. We have no mention of the use of such material in our facts and so this approach could not have been used. (C) is incorrect because the Golden Rule is used when use of the ordinary meaning of words leads to absurd results. No absurd result would arise if the phrase ‘use a motor vehicle’ were interpreted to exclude a parked and disabled vehicle. (E) is incorrect because under the Literal Rule, a court applies the dictionary meaning of a word. The dictionary meaning of the phrase ‘use a motor vehicle’ would not include parking a disabled vehicle.
A lorry driver drove very recklessly through a zebra crossing and killed a pedestrian. The pedestrian’s family initiates a Multi-Track claim for £150,000 against the driver, and the driver is charged with an indictable only offence as a result of their actions.
Which of the following courts would hear the cases?
The County Court or the High Court, King’s Bench Division would hear the civil case, whereas the Crown Court would hear the criminal case
.(D) The civil claim could be initiated in either the County Court or the High Court, King’s Bench Division. Complex claims should be initiated in the High Court, King’s Bench Division, if (1) the financial value of the claim and the amount in dispute are high; (2) the case is complex; or (3) the outcome of the case is important to the general public. None of these factors appears to be present in this case. The Crown Court hears indictable only offences. (A) is incorrect because the Magistrates’ Court would not hear a civil case or a criminal case where the charge is an indictable only offence. (B) is incorrect because the proper division is the King’s Bench Division, not the Chancery Court, which deals with claims involving land contracts, trusts, and wills. (C) is incorrect because, as stated, the Magistrates’ Court would not hear the criminal case. (E) is incorrect because the County Court could conceivably hear the civil case.QUESTION ID: ELS103
QUESTION ID: ELS103
A homeowner was charged with a summary offence under the Dangerous Dog Act (1991) when their mixed breed dog, part pit bull terrier and part poodle, bit a postman. The homeowner was found guilty of that summary offence in Magistrates’ Court based on a previous decision of the Court of Appeal that held that a mixed breed pit bull terrier fell within the definition of a dog bred for fighting. The homeowner wishes to appeal her conviction.
Which of the following statements best describes how the Court of Appeal’s decision will be treated as precedent?
The decision of the Court of Appeal binds all lower courts unless there are material factual differences between the cases.(A) Decisions by the Court of Appeal binds all lower courts in the hierarchy, both in criminal and civil cases, but only if the facts of the two cases are materially the same. If the two cases can be distinguished on the facts, then courts are able to depart from previous decisions. (B) is incorrect as the Court of Appeal does not bind the Supreme Court, and in some cases itself, as discussed further below. (C) is incorrect because the scenario relates to a Crown Court decision so whether the Court of Appeal is bound by its own previous decisions is irrelevant. If it were relevant, the answer would still be incorrect as the Court of Appeal is usually bound by its own decisions in civil cases (with limited exceptions), but in criminal cases has a wide discretion to depart from its previous decisions where it is convinced that a case was wrongly decided and it would cause undue hardship to the defendant if the decision was followed. (D) is incorrect because the Court of Appeal binds all lower courts, both criminal and civil. Appeals to the Court of Appeal are dealt with by either the civil division or the criminal division, as appropriate. (E) is incorrect because, whilst it is true that the Court of Appeal binds all lower courts, if the cases can be distinguished then it is possible for a decision not to be binding
A woman pleaded guilty to a summary offence in the Magistrates’ Court. The Magistrates’ Court gave the woman the maximum sentence allowed, which obviously made the woman unhappy.
Which of the following best states the appellate process under these facts?
The woman has a right to appeal the sentence but not the conviction to the Crown Court.(C) The woman has a right to appeal the sentence to the Crown Court, but she may not appeal the conviction because she pleaded guilty. (A) and (B) are incorrect because permission to appeal is not required here. (A) is additionally incorrect because the answer states that the conviction may be appealed, which is not the case. (D) is incorrect because the woman may not appeal the conviction because she pleaded guilty. (E) is incorrect because the sentence imposed by the Magistrates’ Court may form the basis of an appeal to the Crown Court. QU
A tradesperson brought a claim in the County Court against a homeowner when the homeowner failed to pay for work done. The case was heard before a District Judge, and the District Judge found for the defendant homeowner. The tradesperson wishes to appeal.
From which of the following must the tradesperson seek permission to appeal?
The District Judge who heard the case in the County Court; or, if they refuse to do so, a Circuit Judge of that County Court.(B) Permission for appeal must be sought from the court that heard the case initially, which here is the District Judge in the County Court. If the District Judge refuses, permission may be sought from the court that will hear the appeal, which here is the Circuit Judge in the County Court. (A) is incorrect. The Court of Appeal is not in line to hear the appeal as appeals from a County Court District Judge are to a County Court Circuit Judge. (C) and (D) are incorrect because permission to appeal must first be sought from the District Judge who heard the case. (E) is incorrect because permission to appeal may be sought from the Circuit Judge if the District Judge refuses to grant permission. QUESTION ID: ELS107
QUESTION ID: ELS107
A driver was involved in a road traffic accident case with a famous celebrity. The driver was unhurt, but her car required repair at a cost of £15,000. The celebrity refused to believe they could have caused that much damage to the driver’s car and so refused to reimburse the driver for the bill. Accordingly, the driver would like to proceed with a claim for £15,000.
To which track in the County Court would the claim be allocated?
The Fast Track.(B) A claim with a value between £10,000 and up to £25,000 is allocated to the fast track unless it is too complex. Here, the claim is for £15,000, and the claim involves damage to a car, which is a common occurrence and likely not too complex for Fast Track. (A) is incorrect, as the Small Claims Track is used for cases only if the claim is for not more than £10,000. (There are lesser amounts for other types of cases). (C) is incorrect because a case will be allocated to Multi-Track only if it is too complex for Fast Track or over £25,000 (£10,000 in a personal injury case). (D) and (E) are incorrect because the litigants do not select the allocation
