To ace the test Flashcards

Question

What are the Maxims of Equity concerning Conduct?

Answer 1

- He who comes to equity must come with clean hands (fair conduct). - He who seeks equity must do equity (act fairly). - Delay defeats Equity (delaying can prevent equitable relief).

Answer 2

- Equity looks at the intent, not just the form. - Equity will not permit a statute to be used as an instrument of fraud. - Equity sees as done that which ought to be done. - Equity is equality (fairness). - Equity acts on the conscience (moral consideration).

Answer 3

The US has a dual court system: - Federal courts: Handle federal matters (e.g., national security, federal law). - State courts: Handle state matters (e.g., crime, family, contract law).

Answer 4

Federal courts handle matters designated to be federal, such as: - Matters of federal law - Issues like election interference or national security.

Answer 5

Substantive jurisdiction refers to the court's authority over a particular subject matter, such as crime, family law, or contract disputes.

Answer 6

State courts handle matters designated to be state issues, such as: - Crime - Family law - Contract disputes.

Answer 7

- If a case involves parties from different states or actions in multiple states, the case can be filed in either the state court or federal court (under diversity jurisdiction). - Example: If someone from California has an accident in Washington, with hospital care in Oregon, the case can be filed in Oregon, California, Washington, or federal court depending on the circumstances.

Answer 8

Physical jurisdiction refers to the court's authority over the individuals or events in a specific geographic region.

Answer 9

If a crime happens in a state, it is judged in that state, regardless of the origins of the killer or victim.

Answer 10

- Trial courts of limited jurisdiction: Handle misdemeanor cases and preliminary matters in felony cases. - Trial courts of general jurisdiction: Handle all offenses, including felonies, and may also hear appeals. - Appellate courts: Hear appeals from lower courts but do not try criminal cases. - Courts of last resort (State Supreme Courts): The highest court in a state, where final appeals are made.

Answer 11

These courts handle misdemeanors and preliminary matters in felony cases.

Answer 12

Courts of last resort, usually called State Supreme Courts, are the final authority on appeals and decisions in a state.

Answer 13

These courts handle all criminal offenses, including felonies, and may also hear appeals in some states.

Answer 14

Appellate courts hear appeals of decisions from lower courts but do not conduct trials for criminal cases.

Answer 15

- The Supreme Court chooses the cases it hears. - About 150 cases are accepted every term. -The Court is selective, especially when circuit courts have conflicting opinions.

Answer 16

- The US Supreme Court has original jurisdiction only in cases involving foreign diplomats or a state. - Most cases come to the Court on appeal.

Answer 17

Yes, the President can appoint a non-lawyer to the Supreme Court.

Answer 18

The President appoints Supreme Court justices with Senate approval. Justices serve for life or until they choose to retire. They can only be removed through impeachment.

Answer 19

If the Court refuses to hear a case, the decision of the lower court stands (even if there are conflicting opinions between circuits).

Answer 20

- Supreme Court decisions are final and cannot be overturned by anyone other than the Court itself. - To undo a decision, the US Constitution would need to be changed, which requires: - ⅔ majority of both houses of Congress (nearly impossible to achieve). - ¾ of the states must agree.

Answer 21

Judicial review is the power of the US Supreme Court to determine whether a law or government action is constitutional or goes against the Constitution.

Answer 22

- 1973: Roe v. Wade established abortion as a federal protected right (constitutional right). - The decision was reaffirmed by multiple decisions but was overturned by Dobbs v. Jackson in 2022, which ruled that Roe v. Wade was decided incorrectly.

Answer 23

State judges can be selected in various ways, including: - Gubernatorial appointment - Legislative selection - Merit selection - Nonpartisan election (no party affiliations listed) - Partisan election (candidates endorsed by political parties) - A mixture of methods.

Answer 24

- State judges are typically elected rather than appointed. - The process is often more politicized compared to the federal judiciary.

Answer 25

- Federal judges are appointed by the President and must be approved by the Senate. - Federal judges serve for life.

Answer 26

A nonpartisan election means candidates’ party affiliations are not listed on the ballot. Voters choose based on the candidate's qualifications, not political party.

Answer 27

A partisan election means candidates are endorsed by political parties and their party affiliation is listed on the ballot.

Answer 28

- Merit selection involves a nomination by a commission, followed by an appointment by the governor for a set term. - When the term expires, voters decide whether to reapprove the judge. - If disapproved, the commission nominates a new candidate for the governor’s appointment.

Answer 29

- A legal system where two opposing parties present their arguments to a neutral judge. - The judge doesn’t investigate the facts, but oversees the process and ensures fairness.

Answer 30

- The judge applies the law to the conflict. - The judge directs the court's proceedings but must remain neutral and serve as the trier of fact.

Answer 31

- The jury decides the facts of the case, including what happened and who is responsible. - In a bench trial, the judge determines the facts.

Answer 32

- Gather evidence to support the client’s case (e.g., subpoena, expert reports). - Test the other party’s evidence through cross-examination and discovery. - Make legal submissions to the court and prepare court documents. - Engage in negotiation and settlement.

Answer 33

- Solicitors manage client files and prepare legal documents. - Barristers are specialist advocates with the right to appear in higher courts. - Senior barristers are known as King’s Counsel.

Answer 34

- The quality of legal representation can significantly impact the outcome of a case. - Lawyers determine which evidence is presented and how the facts are argued.

Answer 35

- Physical evidence, witness testimony, and expert reports (e.g., medical experts) are all used to support the case. - Cross-examination is used to challenge the other party's evidence.

Answer 36

- Criminal cases: Determining a person’s guilt or innocence, always brought by the prosecutor or government body. - Civil cases: Settling private disputes between individuals, determining if someone is liable or not liable.

Answer 37

- Plea bargaining or agreeing to a settlement can occur at any time during the process. -It is used to save judicial time and reduce costs, often ending cases out of court.

Answer 38

A bench trial is a trial where only one judge hears the case and determines the facts based on the evidence.

Answer 39

- Judge-made law refers to laws developed by judges through their decisions in particular cases. - It can lead to the creation of new legal principles or the evolution of existing law.

Answer 40

- Judgments can be binding or persuasive depending on whether they come from higher courts or other jurisdictions. - Binding precedent typically applies in the same court system.

Answer 41

- Appeal courts often have an uneven number of judges to ensure decisions are unanimous or have a clear majority. - They do not try new cases, but review the decisions of lower courts.

Answer 42

En banc refers to a case heard by the entire court (all judges), rather than by a panel of judges, especially in appellate cases.

Answer 43

Cross-examination allows lawyers to challenge the credibility and accuracy of the opposing party’s evidence or witnesses.

Answer 44

Evidence in chief is the initial presentation of evidence by the party calling the witness or introducing the evidence. It’s the first opportunity to present the case to the court.

Answer 45

The Supreme Court hears cases en banc, meaning all nine judges participate in the decision-making process.

Answer 46

If all justices agree, the Chief Justice assigns one opinion to the unanimous decision.

Answer 47

- A split decision is common. Decisions are often made with a 5-4 or 6-3 majority. - An uneven number of justices helps in achieving a majority.

Answer 48

- Justices who agree with the majority opinion but have additional or different reasons can write a concurring opinion. - The four justices who didn’t write the majority opinion can also write concurring opinions.

Answer 49

- A dissenting opinion is written by justices who disagree with the majority decision. - It can be used to challenge the majority decision, and if the case is revisited in the future, the dissent may become the majority opinion (e.g., Roe v. Wade to Dobbs).

Answer 50

- Opinions are published, and they are cited to provide references for future cases. - Example of citation: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

Answer 51

- Yes, a dissenting opinion may become the majority opinion in a future case. - Example: In Dobbs v. Jackson, the dissenting opinion from Roe v. Wade became the majority opinion.

Answer 52

- The Chief Justice writes the opinion if he is in the majority. - If the Chief Justice is in the minority, the senior justice in the majority writes the opinion.

Answer 53

- A case name often includes the parties involved and the court system where the case was decided. - Example: Interprods Ltd v De La Rue International [2014] EWHC 68 (Comm) indicates two companies in a case in the High Court of England and Wales.

Answer 54

- R stands for Rex or Regina, indicating the Crown or State in criminal cases. - v means versus, indicating the opposing parties. - Example: R v Smith is a criminal case where the State is prosecuting Smith

Answer 55

- A citation describes where the case was reported, the year of the report, the volume number, and the court system involved. - Example: R v Brown [1994] 1 AC 212 shows the case was heard in the House of Lords in 1994.

Answer 56

- UK citations provide more specific information about the court system (e.g., High Court, House of Lords). - US citations like Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) don’t specify the court system but indicate the case number and year.

Answer 57

- The name of the case provides information about the parties involved and whether the case is civil or criminal. - Example: R v Smith is a criminal case where the State is against Smith.

Answer 58

- CA = Court of Appeal - HC = High Court - SC = Supreme Court - HL = House of Lords

Answer 59

- If the State is the prosecutor, it is a criminal case. - Example: R v Smith is a criminal case where the Crown or State is prosecuting Smith.

Answer 60

- After a decision is made, all lower courts in the jurisdiction are bound by the Ratio Decidendi of the case. - Example: If the highest court rules that Anglicans and Catholics can marry in an Anglican church, this legal principle applies universally in England until further ruling or legislative change.

Answer 61

- Ratio Decidendi is the legal principle or rule established by the court’s decision that is binding in future cases. - Example: In a case about an Anglican and a Catholic marrying in an Anglican church, the Ratio Decidendi is that there is no legal reason preventing this marriage, which becomes law unless overturned or changed by Parliament.

Answer 62

Ratio Decidendi is the binding legal principle from a case, while Obiter Dictum is non-binding commentary or remarks made by the court about the case, which don’t directly affect the decision.

Answer 63

- The court remarks that marrying a non-Christian in an Anglican church may be a different issue due to a religious divide. - This is Obiter Dictum, as it is an opinion without legal consequence on the ruling of Anglican-Catholic marriages.

Answer 64

Obiter Dictum can influence future decisions, but it does not bind the court unless it is adopted as part of the Ratio Decidendi in a later case.

Answer 65

- Obiter Dictum is not legally binding, but it may guide future decisions or influence the interpretation of the law. - Example: In a future case about Anglicans marrying non-Christians, the court might refer to the Obiter Dictum for guidance, but it is not bound by it.

Answer 66

- Yes, Ratio Decidendi applies to similar cases that deal with the same legal principle. - Example: The decision that Anglicans and Catholics can marry in an Anglican church applies only to Catholic and Anglican marriages in that specific context, not to marriages between Anglicans and other religions.

Answer 67

Obiter Dictum allows the judge to express an opinion on related issues, which could be useful for future legal discussions but does not affect the case’s outcome.

Answer 68

Yes, the Ratio Decidendi can be overturned if a higher court makes a different ruling or if Parliament enacts new legislation.

Answer 69

To change the Ratio Decidendi that Anglicans and Catholics can marry in an Anglican church, a higher court must rule differently, or Parliament must pass a law explicitly changing it.

Answer 70

No, Obiter Dictum is not legally binding but could be considered in future cases for guidance.

Answer 71

Horizontal Stare Decisis refers to the principle where a court is generally bound by its own previous decisions but may depart from them when it appears right to do so.

Answer 72

Bristol Aeroplane Exceptions: - Two conflicting decisions of the same level. - A previous decision contradicts a UKSC decision. - The previous decision was made per incuriam (without proper consideration).

Answer 73

Yes, the Criminal CoA has wider discretion in departing from its previous decisions than other courts.

Answer 74

The UKSC is generally bound by its own decisions but may depart from them sparingly when it feels it is right to do so.

Answer 75

R v R (1991): The Court overturned the precedent that a man could not be charged with raping his wife, as it was based on outdated views of marriage. The previous ruling was no longer applicable.

Answer 76

In the US, the Supreme Court requires strong justification to overrule a previous decision, while in the UK, the UKSC may depart from its previous decisions more freely (though still sparingly).

Answer 77

- Quality of Reasoning: The reasoning in the precedent may be flawed. - Workability: If the precedent’s rules are too difficult to apply. - Inconsistency with Related Decisions: If the precedent conflicts with other Supreme Court rulings. - Changed Understanding of Relevant Facts: If societal or judicial understanding of facts has evolved. - Reliance: If people or institutions have relied on the precedent, and overturning it would harm them.

Answer 78

- 1973: Roe v. Wade established abortion as a constitutional right for women. - 2022: Dobbs v. Jackson overturned Roe v. Wade, stating the previous decision had flooded reasoning and was incorrect.

Answer 79

The Court may overrule a precedent if there has been a change in how society or the justices understand the underlying facts of a case, leading to the conclusion that the precedent is no longer valid.

Answer 80

Reliance refers to the idea that people, businesses, and institutions may have made decisions or acted based on an existing precedent. Overturning it may harm those who have relied on the established rule.

Answer 81

If the precedent’s rules or standards are difficult for lower courts or other interpreters to apply, the Court may reconsider the precedent to ensure legal consistency and practicality.

Answer 82

The Bristol Aeroplane exception allows the CoA to depart from its own decisions when: - There are two conflicting decisions. - A decision is in conflict with a UKSC ruling. - A previous decision was made per incuriam (without proper care or attention).

Answer 83

Yes, the UKSC can depart from its previous decisions, but this power is used sparingly and only when it feels it is right to do so.

Answer 84

The UKSC can depart from its previous decisions, especially when there is a conflict between two decisions or if one contradicts a higher authority, like the UKSC itself.

Answer 85

A per curiam decision is an unsigned opinion where no specific judge takes credit for writing it. In the 2018 appeal (EWCA Civ 1879), the GMC v. Dr. Bawa-Garba case was handled by a bench of 3 judges with no dissent or disagreement, resembling a per curiam decision.

Answer 86

The Court of Appeal (2018, EWCA Civ 1879) ruled unanimously in the appeal brought by the doctor. There was no dissent, and no judge added remarks beyond agreeing with the decision. This case was heard by a 3-judge bench.

Answer 87

The General Medical Council v. Dr. Bawa-Garba case deals with the medical liability of Dr. Bawa-Garba, a doctor involved in a medical negligence case concerning the death of a child. The GMC brought an appeal regarding her fitness to practice medicine.

Answer 88

The High Court (HC) case ended with a unanimous decision with no dissent. Both judges agreed on the outcome of the case, and the decision was made without additional remarks in concurrence.

Answer 89

The Crown Court case, EWCA Crim 1841 (2016), involved 3 judges with Dr. Bawa-Garba as the appellant and the Queen as the respondent. The decision was unanimous, even though one judge wrote the opinion.

Answer 90

The case went through multiple stages: - Criminal case in the Crown Court (2016, EWCA Crim 1841). - Appeal to the Court of Appeal (2018, EWCA Civ 1879), with Dr. Bawa-Garba challenging the ruling. - High Court (HC), where the GMC's appeal was heard, leading to a unanimous decision.

Answer 91

A unanimous decision indicates that all judges involved agree on the legal reasoning and outcome of the case. In the General Medical Council v. Dr. Bawa-Garba case, this means that all judges were in full agreement, which can lend authority and finality to the decision.

Answer 92

The specific judge mentioned in the Crown Court case was Sir Brian Leveson.

Answer 93

The General Medical Council (GMC) brought the appeal, challenging Dr. Bawa-Garba's fitness to practice medicine after her conviction in relation to the death of a child in her care.

Answer 94

A concurrence is an agreement with the decision but for different reasons. In the General Medical Council v. Dr. Bawa-Garba case, there was no concurrence, and the judges did not add any separate reasoning to their unanimous decision.

Answer 95

- Unanimity in decision-making: The absence of dissent and concurrence in both the High Court and Court of Appeal cases indicates a clear and strong consensus on the legal outcome. - Appeals process: The case demonstrates the procedural journey from Crown Court to Court of Appeal and the High Court, reflecting the various stages of the appeal process in medical liability cases.

Answer 96

The absence of dissent suggests that there was complete agreement among the judges involved in the case. It signifies strong consensus on the outcome and legal principles applied.

Answer 97

Courts are responsible for interpreting and applying the law. They establish the facts based on evidence and adapt the law to the case at hand.

Answer 98

Traditionally, courts interpreted common law. Today, with the increasing codification of law, courts must interpret and apply statutes (both primary and secondary legislation).

Answer 99

Primary legislation is made by Parliament and is known as an Act or Statute. It is the core form of legislative law in a legal system.

Answer 100

Secondary legislation is made by bodies other than Parliament, delegated the power to do so by primary legislation. It includes regulations, byelaws, statutory instruments, rules, etc.

Answer 101

Parliament delegates the power to make secondary legislation to bodies or authorities, typically through primary legislation. These secondary laws can also be subject to statutory interpretation.

Answer 102

Courts can interpret both primary legislation (acts or statutes made by Parliament) and secondary legislation (delegated powers granted to other bodies).

Answer 103

Courts interpret the law when: - The language of the statute is unclear, ambiguous, or nonsensical. - The statute no longer makes sense in modern society (e.g., outdated language). - The statute is too broad or vague. - There are drafting errors (such as missing or extra commas).

Answer 104

The court seeks the meaning of the words in the statute and tries to determine the intention or will of the legislature when the law was enacted.

Answer 105

Parliament cannot foresee every possible situation that might arise in the future. For example, traffic laws written for horses in the 19th century are no longer adequate for modern cars. Courts are tasked with interpreting laws to apply them to present-day scenarios.

Answer 106

Ambiguity: The language is unclear or open to multiple meanings. Vagueness: The law is too broad to be applied to specific circumstances. Outdated: The law may no longer be relevant or applicable due to societal changes. Drafting errors: Mistakes in the drafting, such as missing punctuation or unclear wording, might require the court's clarification.

Answer 107

Early traffic laws were created when only horses were common. With the advent of automobiles, courts must interpret these old laws to apply them to modern traffic situations

Answer 108

- Addressing novel issues: Creating laws for new or emerging problems. - Consolidating: Bringing together related laws into a single statute. - Codifying: Simplifying and organizing existing laws into a clear, structured code.

Answer 109

The defendant impersonated a dead person and voted in his name. The statute made it an offence to impersonate “any person entitled to vote” in an election.

Answer 110

The defendant was not guilty because the person he impersonated was dead and thus not “entitled to vote.” The court held that the statute did not apply to impersonating a dead person.

Answer 111

The solution was for Parliament to change the law to explicitly include the act of displaying goods for sale as a prohibited act.

Answer 112

The Court of Appeal (CoA) quashed the conviction, finding that displaying goods in a shop window with a price tag was not an "offer" but an invitation to treat. Therefore, the defendant was not “offering” the knife for sale.

Answer 113

The defendant advertised a flick-knife in his shop window, with a price tag attached. He was charged with "offering for sale" the knife, contrary to the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959.

Answer 114

The court suggested that Parliament should amend the law to explicitly include the offence of impersonating a dead person.

Answer 115

The Literal Rule requires that judges interpret statutes based on the exact wording of the statute, even if it leads to an absurd or unjust result.

Answer 116

It respects parliamentary sovereignty, giving Parliament the ultimate power to decide the law. The court’s role is limited to following the exact wording of the statute.

Answer 117

The defendant was charged with bigamy under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The statute stated that "whosoever being married shall marry any other person during the lifetime of the former husband or wife is guilty of an offence."

Answer 118

If Parliament intended to apply a different set of rules, it would have explicitly stated those rules in the statute. The Literal Rule assumes that the words of the statute are the best reflection of Parliament’s intent.

Answer 119

The Literal Rule does not allow the court to consider context or intention behind the law. This can result in outcomes that are unjust or not aligned with the legislative intent, as seen in cases like Whitely v Chappel and Fisher v Bell.

Answer 120

In R v City of London Court Judge (1892), Lord Esher stated that if the words of an Act are clear, even if they lead to a manifest absurdity, the court must follow them. The court cannot question whether Parliament made an absurd decision.

Answer 121

According to Michael Zander in The Law-Making Process, the literal approach is mechanical and can be divorced from the realities of language and human circumstances, potentially leading to injustice.

Answer 122

The court applied the Golden Rule of statutory interpretation, holding that the word "marry" should be interpreted as "to go through a marriage ceremony." The defendant's conviction for bigamy was upheld.

Answer 123

Under a literal interpretation of the statute, the offence would be impossible to commit because civil law would not recognize a second marriage. Any attempt to marry in such circumstances would not be a valid marriage.

Answer 124

The court applied the Golden Rule, which allows for a departure from the literal meaning of the statute when its literal interpretation leads to an absurd or morally repugnant situation.

Answer 125

The Golden Rule allows the court to interpret "marry" as "to go through a marriage ceremony" to avoid an absurd situation where the offence of bigamy would be impossible to commit. This interpretation was necessary to uphold the law's intended purpose.

Answer 126

The literal interpretation would have made the offence of bigamy impossible to commit since the civil law does not recognize a second marriage while one is still legally married. Therefore, the law would not have had any practical application.

Answer 127

The case illustrates that the Golden Rule can be used to interpret statutes in a way that prevents absurd outcomes, ensuring that the law is applied in a manner consistent with its intended purpose, even if the literal wording seems contradictory or impractical.

Answer 128

If the Literal Rule had been applied, the defendant could not have been convicted of bigamy because the statute would not recognize the second marriage as valid. This would have led to an unjust result and an absurd application of the law.

Answer 129

The Golden Rule allows courts to modify the literal interpretation of a statute when it would lead to a situation that is unreasonable, absurd, or contrary to the legislative intent. This ensures the law remains effective and just

Answer 130

The Golden Rule is crucial for ensuring that statutes are applied in a way that reflects the true legislative intent, especially when a literal interpretation would lead to unfair or impractical outcomes, as seen in cases like bigamy.

Answer 131

If interpreted literally, the law would not have applied to the defendant, as a marriage to a second person while still married would not be legally recognized, rendering the offence of bigamy impossible to commit.

Answer 132

The Golden Rule allows courts to depart from the literal meaning of the statute in order to avoid an absurd or unjust result, ensuring the law is interpreted in a way that aligns with its true intent and practical application.

Answer 133

The defendant obstructed a member of the security detail at the prohibited place, not in the vicinity of it. A literal interpretation of the statute would not have applied to the defendant's actions.

Answer 134

The defendant was charged with obstructing a member of the Royal Air Force security detail at a Royal Air Force station. The Official Secrets Act 1920 prohibited obstruction "in the vicinity of" a prohibited place.

Answer 135

The court applied the Golden Rule of statutory interpretation and ruled that the phrase “in the vicinity of” should be interpreted as “in or in the vicinity of” the prohibited place. This interpretation ensured the true effect of the law was given, avoiding an absurd result.

Answer 136

The court applied the Golden Rule, which allows for an interpretation that avoids an absurdity or illogical outcome, giving the statute its true effect in light of the circumstances.

Answer 137

The Golden Rule was used to prevent an absurd result, where the literal interpretation of the statute would have led to the defendant not being guilty despite obstructing a security officer at the prohibited place.

Answer 138

The literal interpretation would have restricted the offence to obstruction occurring only outside the prohibited place, in the vicinity, which would have excluded the defendant's actions, making the statute ineffective.

Answer 139

A son had murdered his mother to inherit her estate. Under a literal interpretation of the statute, he would have been entitled to inherit her property.

Answer 140

The literal interpretation of the law would have allowed the son to inherit his mother's estate despite committing murder. This would have been against public policy and morally repugnant, so the Golden Rule was used to prevent this result.

Answer 141

The court applied the Golden Rule and interpreted the statute to prevent the son from inheriting, even though the literal reading would have allowed him to. This decision was made to align with public policy and prevent an immoral result.

Answer 142

The Golden Rule aims to prevent absurd, unjust, or morally repugnant results that might arise from the literal interpretation of a statute, ensuring that the law is applied in a way that reflects its true purpose and societal values.

Answer 143

In Adler v George, the Golden Rule was used to adjust the meaning of "in the vicinity of" to "in or in the vicinity of" to ensure the law covered obstruction at the prohibited place. In Re Sigsworth, the Golden Rule was used to prevent the son from benefiting from his crime (murder) and inheriting his mother's estate, thus aligning the law with public policy.

Answer 144

Vicinity refers to the neighborhood or the area surrounding a particular place. In the case, it was interpreted to also include the prohibited place itself to ensure the law applied to the obstruction that occurred there

Answer 145

The Golden Rule ensures that statutes are applied sensibly, even when the literal interpretation would result in an absurd or unjust outcome, making it a flexible tool for courts to ensure justice is served.

Answer 146

The Mischief Rule asks the court to identify the “mischief” or gap that the statute was created to address. The goal is to apply the law in a way that suppresses the mischief and advances the remedy intended by Parliament.

Answer 147

- What was the common law before the making of the Act? - What was the mischief and defect that the common law did not address? - What remedy did Parliament decide to provide to cure the issue? - What is the true reason for the remedy? ## Footnote The court uses these questions to determine the intention behind the statute and to apply the law accordingly.

Answer 148

The office of the judges is to construct the law in a way that suppresses the mischief and advances the remedy Parliament intended to address the gap or defect in the law.

Answer 149

A journalist published information about juror reasoning in a high-profile trial. The newspaper argued that there was no contempt of court because the information was indirectly obtained (via a third party) and did not involve direct contact with the juror.

Answer 150

The court applied the Mischief Rule, holding that the Contempt of Court Act 1981 was intended to protect juror secrecy. The Act was violated regardless of direct or indirect contact with the juror, because the mischief was the compromise of juror deliberations.

Answer 151

The mischief was the interference with the secrecy of jury deliberations. The court found that the intent of the statute was to prevent any action that would compromise that secrecy, whether or not the information was directly obtained from the juror.

Answer 152

The court applied the Mischief Rule and interpreted “street or public place” to include the defendant’s home. The mischief the Act was designed to address was prostitution, regardless of the location.

Answer 153

The mischief was prostitution, and the Act aimed to prevent it in public spaces, so the court extended the interpretation of “street or public place” to include the defendant's house, aligning with Parliament's purpose to curb prostitution.

Answer 154

The Street Offences Act 1959 aimed to prevent prostitution in the “street or public place.” The defendant solicited from inside her house, not on the street, raising the question of whether the Act applied.

Answer 155

Even if the specific act is not directly covered by the statute, the Mischief Rule allows the court to focus on the intention of Parliament in passing the law. The court will apply the law to suppress the mischief the statute was designed to address, even if the exact scenario wasn't anticipated.

Answer 156

The court applied the Mischief Rule because the mischief—prostitution in the first case, and juror secrecy in the second—was central to Parliament's intent when creating the statutes. The law was interpreted broadly to achieve the remedy Parliament sought, even if the literal wording didn't cover the exact situation.

Answer 157

The case involved a 16-year-old complainant who was subjected to racial abuse at work. The issue was whether the employer should be held liable for racial discrimination by employees “in the course of their employment,” even though the abuse was not authorized by the employer and was not directly related to the complainant’s job duties.

Answer 158

The Purposive Approach goes beyond the words of the statute and focuses on interpreting the legislation in line with the purpose of the Act. Judges look at why the statute was passed, considering its intent rather than its literal wording.

Answer 159

Unlike the Literal Rule, which focuses strictly on the words of the statute, the Purposive Approach allows courts to look beyond the words to ensure the statute is applied in a way that furthers the purpose it was created to achieve, even if this means not adhering strictly to the letter of the law.

Answer 160

The court applied a broad interpretation of “in the course of employment” to ensure justice for the complainant, even though the employer had not authorized the abuse. The court concluded that the purpose of the legislation was to protect employees from discrimination in the workplace, and that this applied to incidents like racial abuse, even if it wasn’t directly tied to job duties.

Answer 161

The court focused on the purpose of the legislation, which was to protect individuals from discrimination, and determined that vicarious liability applied even though the abuse was not officially sanctioned by the company. The court expanded the definition of "in the course of employment" to provide protection to the employee.

Answer 162

The Mischief Rule emphasizes the intention of Parliament and the purpose of the legislation rather than focusing strictly on the literal meaning of words. Courts are tasked with finding and addressing the mischief the statute was created to resolve.

Answer 163

Ejusdem Generis is a rule of language that suggests when a list of specific words is followed by a general term, the general term should be interpreted to include only things of the same type or kind as the specific terms listed. Example: "Cars, trucks, and other vehicles" → "vehicles" would be interpreted as types of vehicles like cars and trucks, not including aircrafts or ships.

Answer 164

Noscitur a Sociis means that the meaning of a word can be clarified by looking at the words surrounding it. When two or more words are used together, their meaning can be inferred from their relationship to each other. Example: “Lions, tigers, and other animals” → The word “animals” is interpreted to mean wild animals similar to lions and tigers.

Answer 165

The Purposive Approach allows courts to look beyond the literal meaning of the statute to consider its intent. This helps resolve ambiguity by focusing on what Parliament intended when drafting the law, rather than being bound by potentially unclear or outdated language

Answer 166

The Purposive Approach ensures that the law is interpreted in a way that is consistent with the original intent of Parliament, even if the language of the statute is ambiguous or outdated. It allows for flexibility in applying the law to modern situations and helps achieve justice in cases where a strict literal interpretation would lead to an unfair result.

Answer 167

The Literal Rule requires that the words of the statute be applied as they are written, even if this leads to absurd or unjust outcomes. In contrast, the Purposive Approach focuses on the intent behind the statute, allowing for a broader interpretation that ensures the law fulfills its purpose in real-world situations.

Answer 168

The Purposive Approach is flexible because it allows the court to look beyond the literal words and apply the statute in a way that achieves the intended outcome. This flexibility ensures that justice is served in a way that reflects the purpose of the law, even if the specific wording does not directly address a particular situation.

Answer 169

Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius means that the expression of one thing implies the exclusion of others. When specific items are listed in a statute, it is assumed that items not mentioned are excluded. Example: "A law banning the use of knives and forks" → The law would likely not apply to spoons or other utensils because the statute specifically mentions knives and forks.

Answer 170

The Purposive Approach ensured that the statutory purpose—protecting employees from racial discrimination in the workplace—was fulfilled. By broadly interpreting the term "in the course of employment", the court provided a just outcome for the complainant, even though the employer hadn’t authorized the abuse.

Answer 171

Hansard is the official verbatim report of debates in the UK Parliament. It records speeches, discussions, and statements made by Members of Parliament, which traditionally were not referred to in the courts for statutory interpretation.

Answer 172

Before Pepper v Hart, courts were not allowed to refer to Hansard to interpret statutes, as seen in the Davis v Johnson [1978] decision, where it was ruled that parliamentary debates should not be used in judicial interpretation of legislation.

Answer 173

Pepper v Hart allowed Hansard to be referenced in statutory interpretation, marking a significant change in the legal landscape. This decision meant that parliamentary debates could be used to understand legislative intent, especially in cases where the statutory language was ambiguous.

Answer 174

The teacher was not required to pay tax on the benefit of having their children educated for free at the school. The House of Lords relied on statements in Hansard, which indicated that the Finance Act was not intended to tax such benefits.

Answer 175

The House of Lords departed from the previous decision in Davis v Johnson and adopted a purposive approach to statutory interpretation. They held that Hansard could be used to determine the intent of Parliament when the legislative text was ambiguous

Answer 176

The House of Lords decided that it would be more consistent with the purposive approach to interpretation to allow reference to Hansard when the legislative language was unclear. They believed that Parliament's intentions, as expressed in debates, should be considered, especially in cases where it helped clarify ambiguity or potential injustice in applying the statute.

Answer 177

The central issue was whether a teacher at a private school should pay tax on the benefit received from having their children educated for free at the school, and whether statements in Hansard could be used to interpret the Finance Act in this context.

Answer 178

The House of Lords viewed statutory interpretation as a process to ensure that laws are applied in a way that is consistent with the intent of Parliament. They emphasized that courts should adopt a purposive approach to give effect to legislative intentions, particularly when the language of a statute is unclear or leads to absurdity.

Answer 179

Pepper v Hart shifted the interpretation of statutes toward considering legislative intent through parliamentary debates. This meant that courts could look beyond just the text of the law and ensure that its application aligned with the true purpose behind its enactment.

Answer 180

Hansard provides insights into parliamentary intent by revealing the context, discussions, and reasons behind the passage of a statute. This can help clarify ambiguous provisions and avoid misapplication of the law, as seen in the Pepper v Hart case, where it confirmed that school fee benefits were not meant to be taxed.

Answer 181

Pepper v Hart established a precedent where judges could refer to Hansard to help interpret ambiguous or unclear statutes. This allowed for a more flexible and purposive approach to interpreting the law, ensuring that the spirit of the law, rather than its letter, was followed.

Answer 182

While Pepper v Hart allows courts to consider parliamentary debates, it still respects parliamentary sovereignty. It ensures that parliamentary intent is respected in judicial interpretation, helping align the law with the objectives Parliament sought to achieve.

Answer 183

The teacher was not required to pay tax on the bonus of free school fees. This decision followed the purpose of the Finance Act, as revealed in Hansard, which indicated that such benefits were not to be taxed, thus benefiting the teacher.

Answer 184

The purposive approach involves interpreting statutes in a way that gives effect to the purpose or intent of Parliament, rather than focusing strictly on the literal wording. In Pepper v Hart, this meant considering Hansard to ensure that the law was applied as intended by Parliament.

Answer 185

- The defendant may receive a lower sentence. - The judge validates the sentence based on the guilty plea

Answer 186

- Guilty - Not guilty - No contest

Answer 187

- The defendant denies the charges and prepares for trial. - The preparation involves witnesses, legal arguments, and evidence to challenge the prosecution’s case.

Answer 188

The defendant must enter a plea of not guilty and proceed with trial preparation.

Answer 189

- The defendant does not admit guilt but agrees to accept the punishment. - It is not considered an admission of guilt, but the defendant accepts the consequences.

Answer 190

Pre-trial discovery is the process where both parties exchange evidence, witnesses, and legal arguments before the trial starts. It ensures both sides are aware of the materials and witnesses involved.

Answer 191

The court decides the timeline and schedule for the trial after pre-trial preparations are complete.

Answer 192

- Jury trials - Bench trials (judge-only trials)

Answer 193

- In the case of a serious criminal offence, the defendant has the right to a trial by jury. - However, the defendant may waive this right and choose a bench trial instead.

Answer 194

- The jury is composed of 12 regular citizens who serve as the triers of fact. - Their job is to examine the evidence and determine if it is sufficient to support a conviction or verdict.

Answer 195

- In civil cases in the UK, there is no jury by default. - However, a jury trial can be requested for certain cases.

Answer 196

- The judge instructs the jury on the application of the law. - The judge will guide the jury but will not make decisions on the facts, which is the jury's responsibility.

Answer 197

The trial proceeds with opening statements, followed by the introduction of evidence.

Answer 198

- The opening statement is where each side builds a story and outlines what they intend to prove during the trial. - It is the first presentation of the case and evidence not yet introduced is discussed.

Answer 199

- Evidence is introduced immediately after the opening statement. - The prosecution presents first, followed by the defense.

Answer 200

After a witness is cross-examined, the reexamination allows the side that called the witness to ask additional questions to clarify or rebut the opposing side’s cross-examination

Answer 201

The trial moves to the closing arguments, where each side makes a final argument based on the evidence presented during the trial.

Answer 202

- The closing arguments summarize the evidence already presented and attempt to persuade the jury to reach a verdict favorable to the speaker's side. - At this stage, the jury has already heard all the evidence and arguments.

Answer 203

- The losing party in a case, or the convicted party in a criminal case, can seek leave to appeal. - Leave to appeal is permission from the court to initiate appeal proceedings.

Answer 204

The appellant must seek permission from the court (usually from a single judge or lower court) to have their appeal heard by a full court or higher court

Answer 205

- The appellate court will consider the appeal based on points of law that arose from the judgment of the lower court. - They do not retry the facts of the case, but instead focus on the legal aspects of the original trial.

Answer 206

- Procedural abnormalities (e.g., violation of civil rights). - Unconstitutional application of the law. - Incorrect application of legal precedents. - Misinterpretation of the law by the trial court. - Misinstruction of the jury (but this pertains to legal instruction, not the facts).

Answer 207

- In France, appeals are more limited and focus strictly on points of law. - The court does not retrial the facts, but instead, it reviews whether the law was applied correctly. - Appeals typically do not address factual disputes but focus on the legal issues surrounding the case.

Answer 208

Wear a suit or suit jacket (cover your arms). Closed-toe shoes are best. No sunglasses or casual wear. No food, drinks, or coffee in the courtroom. Be quiet if speaking while waiting.

Answer 209

- If the appellate court finds a legal error, it may overturn or amend the decision of the lower court, but it does not reexamine the facts. - The court may order a retrial or modify the sentence if the error was significant.

Answer 210

- Lawyers or self-represented individuals sit at the bar table. - The applicant sits on the left and the respondent on the right. - Only court documents and files should be on the bar table—no handbags or bottles of water. - The bar table should not be left empty; ask for permission to leave. - Do not leave the courtroom without permission or before adjournment.

Answer 211

- Wait your turn to speak. - Stand up when speaking (unless stated otherwise by the court). - Don’t lean on chairs, put hands in pockets, or feet on chairs. - Address the judge as “Your Honour”, “Your Worship”, “Your Lordship”, etc. - Do not turn your back to the judge without permission.

Answer 212

- Start with “May it please the court”. - Introduce yourself (e.g., “Smith, S.M.I.T.H., for the defence”). - Always address the judge by title (e.g., “Your Honour”). - Stand when addressing the judge or making submissions.

Answer 213

- Opening and closing submissions: Persuasive and well-structured. - Evidence in chief, cross-examination, and re-examination: Conducted with non-leading questions. - Objections: Raised when there is a violation of rules (e.g., relevance, inadmissible evidence). - Stand up when speaking unless seated

Answer 214

Be organized: Structure tasks and prepare summaries. Know the facts: Understand all relevant evidence. Know the law: Be familiar with precedents and case law. Be clear and concise: Avoid unnecessary details and be direct.

Answer 215

- Clear objective: Know the legal result you seek. - Concise and to the point: Avoid long, irrelevant explanations. - Provide references or case briefs when citing legal points. - Speak clearly and formally: Avoid mannerisms or distractions.

Answer 216

- “May it please the court”: Formal address to start speaking. - “My (learned) friend”: Refers to the opposition. - “With the greatest of respect”: Polite disagreement. - “I seek to tender”: Used when offering evidence. - “I am instructed that…”: When passing along instructions from a client.

Answer 217

- It is the initial presentation of evidence by the party calling the witness. - Non-leading questions: Let the witness tell their story. - Controlled: The lawyer asks in a structured manner, not allowing the witness to stray. - Purpose: To establish key facts clearly.

Answer 218

- Documentary evidence: Reports, data, and written documents. - Physical evidence: Tangible items like weapons, clothing, or objects used in a crime. - Testimonial evidence: Witnesses provide testimony (eyewitness, character, expert).

Answer 219

- Purpose: To undermine the other party’s case, test witness credibility, or contradict testimony. - Closed questions: Ask simple, direct questions that require a yes or no answer. - Controlled: Avoid getting emotional or aggressive. - Impeaching the witness: Pointing out inconsistencies in their testimony.

Answer 220

- Set an objective: Know what you want to achieve. - Control the subject matter: Keep the focus narrow. - Logical sequence: Ask questions in order. - Impact: Begin and end with strong points. - Be relevant: Avoid unnecessary or irrelevant questions.

Answer 221

- It occurs after cross-examination, allowing the lawyer to clarify any issues. - Limited: Only address matters raised during cross-examination. - Non-leading questions: Similar to evidence in chief, control the story.

Answer 222

- A formal protest against improper evidence or procedure. - Grounds for objections: Relevance, question type, or inadmissible evidence. - Can be raised during cross-examination if the other party violates rules.

Answer 223

- If new testimony arises unexpectedly, it can be subject to redirection (additional questioning by the lawyer). - This is a planned intervention but can be unanticipated.

Answer 224

Abortion was legal in the early stages of pregnancy, but became illegal after "quickening" (when the woman could feel fetal movement).

Answer 225

The Malicious Shooting or Stabbing Act 1803, which imposed severe penalties like death or transportation for performing or causing an abortion.

Answer 226

The US Supreme Court ruled that the state law criminalizing contraceptive use for married couples violated the right to privacy under the 1st Amendment, extending this right to unmarried couples in Eisenstadt v. Baird (1971).

Answer 227

The US Supreme Court affirmed the constitutional right to an abortion based on a woman's right to privacy, establishing a trimester framework for abortion regulation.

Answer 228

- First trimester: Abortion should be a woman's choice (no state interference). - Second trimester: States can regulate abortion, but only in ways that protect the woman's health. - Third trimester: States can restrict or prohibit abortions, except when necessary to protect the woman’s life or health.

Answer 229

The Supreme Court reaffirmed the right to abortion but replaced the trimester framework with an "undue burden" standard, where state laws cannot impose an undue burden on a woman's access to abortion.

Answer 230

A state law is unconstitutional if it imposes an undue burden on a woman’s right to obtain an abortion, as seen in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Answer 231

The 9th Amendment recognizes that the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution does not deny other unlisted rights, including the right to privacy that supports abortion access.

Answer 232

The 14th Amendment’s due process clause guarantees the fundamental right to privacy, which the Court has extended to include a woman's right to choose an abortion.

Answer 233

The Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, ruling that there is no constitutional right to abortion, returning the authority to regulate abortion to individual states.

Answer 234

Whether the Constitution protects a woman’s right to have an abortion, with the Court ruling it does not.

Answer 235

States now have the authority to regulate or ban abortion, as the Supreme Court ruled there is no constitutional right to abortion.

Answer 236

A case brief helps to summarize and analyze the facts, issues, legal rules, and reasoning of a case, aiding in understanding and remembering important legal principles.

Answer 237

The Mississippi Gestational Age Act, which banned most abortions after 15 weeks of gestation.

Answer 238

- Informed consent - Spousal notification (struck down) - Parental consent for minors - 24-hour waiting period - Reporting requirements