MISCHIEF RULE

Question 1

Mischief rule

Answer 1

Focuses more on the intentions of parliament rather than the precise words

Question 2

What case defines the mischief rule

Answer 2

Heydons case 1584

Question 3

Heydons case 1584

Answer 3

1- what was the law before the act?
2- what was the problem they’re trying to fix?
3- what was the solution parliaments trying to the provide ?
4- what was the gal the law was trying to fill?

Question 4

Eastbourne borough council v Stirling

Answer 4

Taxi driver vehicle was parked on a taxi rank without a licence. He was found guilty because although he was on private land, it was likely he’d get customers from the street. Court referred to smith v Hughes and said it was the same point. He was charged with ‘plying for hire in any street without a licence to do so’ courts got info on the law from smith v Hughes and street offences act

Question 5

Corkery v carpenter

Answer 5

Defendant was in charge of a vile wholst drunk and was charged under the licensing act as it’s an offence to be intoxicated whilst in charge of a carriage courts decided a bike was a carriage for the purposes of the act. The mischief was intoxicated people the highway being in charge of transport

Question 6

Smith v Hughes

Answer 6

Under the street offences act it was an offence to ‘tempt / infuse in a street or public Place for the purpose of prostitution’ the prostitute was in a house tapping on the window when a potential customer walked past although they were not in a public place

Question 7

Elliot v grey

Answer 7

The road traffic act stated that it was an offence for ‘an uninsured car to be used on the roads’ the car was on the road but it had no battery or tires so couldn’t be used but it was still seen as a hazard that the law intended to prevent and therefore was covered by the phrase ‘used on the roads’