Statutory Interpretation

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: raj5009
  • Created on: 09-05-16 10:33

1. Ratio of Re Sigsworth

  • Actions were included in the Act's intention
  • No ambiguity but judges decided it would be 'repugnant to public policy' so Parliament couldnt have intended it
  • 'vicinity of' should be near/on the place- guilty
1 of 20

Other questions in this quiz

2. What was the ratio of Cheeseman?

  • No compensation granted- he was maintaning lines, not 'relaying or reparing' them
  • not guilty- the policemen were not 'passengers' because they went looking for him
  • Guilty- he was exposing himself

3. What was the word interpreted in Muir v Keay, and what was held?

  • 'entitled'- not guilty, a dead person is not actually entitled to vote
  • 'entertainment'- it included drinking coffee, not just musical or theatre. So D committed an offence
  • 'street'- she was found guilty because the action was included in the Acts intention

4. What was held in Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Assoc.?

  • Nurses could be considered as 'registered medical practitioners'
  • 'spouse' doesnt apply, but 'family' can include a longstanding, close, loving relationship.
  • He wasnt 'spouse' or 'family'

5. What were the words interpreted in RCN v DHSS?

  • 'street'
  • 'registered medical pracitioner'
  • 'plying for hire'


No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all Statutory Interpretation resources »