1. Ratio of Fisher v Bell
- Weapons were an 'invation to treat'- so inviting customers to make offers to buy goods- aquitted
- Cloth bag wasnt the same as a case or canister, guilty
- Betting shop wasn't indoors, so not guilty
1 of 20
Other questions in this quiz
2. Singh v Bhakar was a case about bullying, why was the woman found guilty?
- Even though the Act intended to prevent stalkers it could include victims of bullying
- She was stalking the victim
- She wasnt found guilty
3. Ratio of Heydons case, and which rule/approach?
- Not guilty- he was maintaining the lines, not 'repairing or replaying'
- Mischief Rule- what was the common law before the Act? What was the mischief that it failed to remedy? What remedy does the Act attempt to provide? What is the true meaning of the remedy?
- Guilty- it would be 'repugnant to public policy'
4. What does Ejusdem Generis mean?
- 'Of the same kind'
- 'the mention of one thing excludes another'
- 'dont be mean'
- 'you are wrong'
5. Facts of Whiteley v Chappell
- He was exposing himself to people in a pubic toilet
- He used the vote of a dead person. Statute made it an offence to impersonate 'any person entitled to vote'
- He killed his mother to inherit her estate