statutory interpretation Flashcards

1
Q

Explain the literal rule

A

PLOD (plain literal ordinary oxford dictionary definition from when the act was passed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What cases are used in the literal rule

A

Cheeseman, Basset, Berriman

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Explain Cheeseman

A

‘exposing himself’, policeman was not a ‘passenger’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Explain Basset

A

D was filming men changing in toilets, men dont have ‘breasts,

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Explain Berriman

A

Was oiling and maintaining not repairing so not entitled to lookout

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What judge supports the literal rule

A

Lord Esher

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Explain the golden rule

A

A modification of the literal rule and is used when the literal rule produces an absurdity or morally repugnant decision

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What cases are used in the literal rule

A

Sigsworth, Allen, Adler v George

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What judge supports the golden rule

A

Lord Wensleydale

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Explain Sigsworth

A

Killed his mother to get inheritance money, Courts thought it to be morally repugnant and did not allow him to receive the money

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Explain Allen

A

Convicted of bigamy, marry can mean to legally marry or to go through a marriage ceremony, he went through two but legally only married once

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Explain Adler v George

A

Convicted of obstructing an officer in a military base, in the ‘vicinity’ does not mean inside. Absurdity, conviction upheld

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What is the broad approach

A

Where the word only has one meaning so the courts modify the meaning of it

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What case is used to show the broad approach

A

Sigsworth

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What is the narrow approach

A

Where a word has more than one meaning so the courts choose the most relevant definition

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What case is used to show the narrow approach

A

Allen

17
Q

Explain the mischief rule

A
4 points of Heydons case
What was the act before
What mischief were they trying to remedy 
What remedy was produced 
What was the true reason for the remedy
18
Q

What cases are used for the mischief rule

A

Elliot v Grey, Sweet v Parsley, Smith v Hughes, Corkery v Carpenter

19
Q

Explain Elliot v Grey

A

Parked his car without the batter on the side of the road, told he needed insurance even though it couldnt be used, aimed to keep roads safer.

20
Q

Explain Sweet v Parsley

A

Teacher let her students use her house and they smoked canabis. common law said mens rea was required but teacher did not have it.

21
Q

Explain Smith v Hughes

A

Prostitutes solicited from private premises to be seen by public, was an offence as remedy was to stop having it aimed at public

22
Q

Explain Corkery v Carpenter

A

Rode a bicycle while drunk. Bicycle classed as carriage so was an offence

23
Q

Explain the purposive approach

A

The courts look at what the gap in the law was and decide what it was parliament were trying to achieve

24
Q

Who supports the purposive approach

A

Lord Denning and the EU

25
Q

What cases are used in the purposive approach

A

R v General Registrar Ex Parte Smith, Fitzpatrick v Sterling housing association, Gadin v Gohdn Mendoza

26
Q

Explain R v General registrar ex parte smith

A

D was convicted and wanted to see his birth certificate. Denied it as fear it would endanger his mother

27
Q

Explain Fitzpatrick v Sterling housing association

A

Homosexual couple were co-living when one passed. Originally the other one was jot allowed to stay as a homosexual couple was not a ‘family’ courts found that they were

28
Q

Explain Gadin v Gohdin Mendoza

A

Homosexual couple were living together and one died the surviving one was told to leave until they were seen as the ‘surviving spouse’