Unit 1 - Nature of Law and the English Legal System

Question 1

Case - Removed the necessity for the Law Lords/Supreme Court to be bound by their own decisions.

Answer 1

Practice Statement 1966

Question 2

Case - Removed requirement for the Civil Court of Appeal to be self-bound, provided the following existed:

1. A previous decision was made in error
2. There are two conflicting decisions
3. The Supreme Court has made a conflicting decision.

Answer 2

Young v Bristol Aeroplane Co Ltd (1944)

Question 3

Case - example of an obiter dicta being persuasive

Answer 3

Hill v Baxter (1958) - bee automatism

Question 4

Latin term for the fundamental principle of following precedent.

Answer 4

Stare decisis

Question 5

Latin term for “reason for decision” - the main part of the judgment

Answer 5

Ratio decidendi

Question 6

Latin term for “other things said” - other parts of the judgment which may be influential

Answer 6

Obiter dicta

Question 7

What are the three choices a judge has in regards to precedent?

Answer 7

Follow, overrule, or distinguish

Question 8

Case - give an example of the Law Lords overtturning their own decision.

Answer 8

Anderton v Ryan (1985) overturned by R v Shivpuri (1986)

Question 9

Name three types of alternative dispute resolution.

Answer 9

Tribunals, negotiation and mediation

Question 10

Definite the three types of crime in relation to which Court the matter may be heard.

Answer 10

Summary - Magistrates only
Either-way - Crown or Magistrates
Indictable - Crown only

Question 11

Name the stages of a bill becoming an Act of Parliament.

Answer 11

Drafted (either by government or by private member)
First Reading (announcing to Parliament that the Bill exists)
Second Reading (debate and discussion on the contents of the Bill and suggesting additions)
Committee (being reviewed and revised by the House Committee, including consulations with relevant groups)
Report (reporting back to Parliament on the commitee decisions)
Third Reading (debate on the actual contents of the Bill)
Bill goes to other House (usually Lords) for approval - can lead to “ping-pong”
If other House approves, goes to the monarch for Royal Assent

Question 12

Which organisations govern and regulate barristers?

Answer 12

Governed by Bar Council, regulated by Bar Standards Board.

Question 13

Which organisations govern and regulate solicitors?

Answer 13

Governed by Law Society, regulated by SRA

Question 14

What are the three types of delegated legislation?

Answer 14

Orders in Council, Statutory Instruments and By-Laws

Question 15

What is an Order in Council?

Answer 15

An Order made by the Privy Council.

Question 16

What is a Statutory Instrument?

Answer 16

An organisation set up by Parliament to pass laws in a specialised area.

Question 17

What is a by-law?

Answer 17

A local law set up by a local authority such as a council.

Question 18

What are the three means of judicial control on delegated legislation?

Answer 18

Procedural ultra vires, substantive ultra vires, and Wednesbury unreasonableness

Question 19

What is procedural ultra vires?

Answer 19

A form of judicial control on delegated legislation where the legislation fails to follow the “how” instructions in the parent Act.

Question 20

Case - example of procedural ultra vires

Answer 20

Agricultural Training Board v Aylesbury Mushrooms Ltd (1972) - mushroom consultation

Question 21

What is substantive ultra vires?

Answer 21

A form of judicial control on delegated legislation where the legislation fails to follow the “to what extent” instructions in the parent Act and has exceeded its powers.

Question 22

Case - example of substantive ultra vires

Answer 22

R v Secretary of State for Health ex parte Pfizer Ltd (1999) - Viagra Ban

Question 23

What is Wednesbury unreasonableness?

Answer 23

A form of judicial control on delegated legislation where the legislation “is outrageous in its defiance of logic”

Question 24

Case - example of Wednesbury unreasonableness

Answer 24

Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation (1948) - Sunday cinema

Question 25

What are the four approaches to statutory interpretation?

Answer 25

Literal rule, golden rule, mischief rule and the purposive approach

Question 26

What is the literal rule?

Answer 26

A rule in statutory interpretation where the Act in question is treated entirely literally without regard to potential absurdity.

Question 27

Give one pro and one con of the literal rule.

Answer 27

Pro - respects parliamentary sovereignty and provides certainty
Con - Can lead to injustice or absurd results and assumes perfect drafting

Question 28

Case - example of literal rule

Answer 28

Fisher v Bell (1961) - knife sale

Question 29

What is the golden rule?

Answer 29

A rule in statutory interpretation where words are given their literal meaning unless the result would be absurd.

Question 30

Give one pro and one con of the golden rule.

Answer 30

Pro - avoids absurding while respecting parliamentary sovereignty
Con - “absurd” is undefined and this may lead to inconsistency

Question 31

Case - example of golden rule

Answer 31

Re Sigsworth (1935) - martricide inheritor

Question 32

What is the mischief rule?

Answer 32

A rule in statutory interpretation where the rule interprets the Act in respect of the “mischief” it is attempting to remedy.

Question 33

Give one pro and one con of the mischief rule.

Answer 33

Pro - closes loopholes and is likely to be just

Con - contradicts parliamentary sovereignty and may lead to uncertainty

Question 34

Case - example of mischief rule

Answer 34

Smith v Hughes (1960) - prostitute window

Question 35

What is the purposive approach?

Answer 35

A rule in statutory interpretation where the Act is interpreted in relation its its purpose rather than what it may literally say

Question 36

Give one pro and one con of the purposive approach.

Answer 36

Pro - just, allows reaction to new technology, avoids absurdity
Con - may lead to absurdity, does not respect parliamentary sovereignty

Question 37

Case - example of purposive approach

Answer 37

R v Coleman (2013) - boat theft

Question 38

Case - allowed judges to consult Hansard

Answer 38

Pepper v Hart (1993) - teacher tax