Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
12 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Whiteley v Chappell 1868 (Literal Rule) |
The defendant was charged under a section which made it an offense to impersonate 'any person entitled to vote'. He pretended to be a guy on the voting list, a dead guy. Court held not guilty as literal view of entitled to vote means living, not dead. |
|
|
Fisher v Bell 1960 (Literal Rule) |
Flick knife displayed on display cabinet. Statute made this illegal but only to 'offer'. Case found not an offer, but invitation to treat. Not guilty. Parliament after this changed statute to cover that also. |
|
|
Mattison v Hart 1854 (First use of Golden Rule) |
'recourse to what is called the golden rule ... to give words used by legislature their plain meaning unless it is manifest from the general scope of the statute, injustice and absurdity would result. |
|
|
GOLDEN RULE |
Starts with literal rule, if absurd result use golden. Narrow application if only a word is ambiguous, Wide application if words lead to repugnant situation, modify to avoid repugnance. |
|
|
Re Sigsworth 1935 (Golden Rule) |
Son killed mum. Was to inherit mum's estate. Courts held not fair that son benefit from crime. Repugnant situation was averted by using Golden Rule. |
|
|
Heydon's Case (Started Mischief Rule) |
The court should look to see what the law was before the Act was passed in order to discover what gap or 'mischief' was to be covered. |
|
|
Smith v Hughes 1960 (Mischief rule) |
6 women convicted. Argued that they were not 'in a street or public place' as stated in statute. One woman in balcony, others in ground floor of private property. Courts saw that the Act was to eliminate the mischief which is to clean up streets. |
|
|
Magor v Newport CA (Denning for Purposive) Magor v Newport HL (Simonds chastising LD) |
CA : We sit here to find out the intention of Parliament and carry it out, and we do this better filling the gaps and making sense of the enactment than by opening up to destructive analysis. HL : 'A naked usurpation of the legislative function under the thin guise of interpretation' |
|
|
R v RG (Example of Purposive) |
Guy was murderer and psycho. Made an application to enable him to find birth certificate: find his mother. Courts found that using literal rule he fulfilled all in Act to get certificate but in fear of him murdering mother, used the purposive approach, attested that Parliament could not have intended to promote serious crime. |
|
|
Davis v Johnson 1978
(Hansard) |
Lord Denning admitted to using Hansard |
|
|
Pepper v Hart 1993 (Relaxed view on use of Hansard, previously Hansard banned 1992) |
Hansard may be used only when words ambiguous. |
|
|
Professor Zander |
Found that most cases fell into one of 3 categories: 1. no ambiguity or reason to consult Hansard 2. Hansard was consulted but it was of no assistance 3. the comments by minister confirmed the view the court had already taken of the matter. |
