Statutory Interpretation
- Created by: raj5009
- Created on: 09-05-16 10:33
Other questions in this quiz
2. 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
3. Ratio of Heydons case, and which rule/approach?
- 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'
- Not guilty- he was maintaining the lines, not 'repairing or replaying'
4. 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
5. In Wood v Commissioner of Metro Police, what was the broken glass no EG with?
- 'gun, pistol, cutlass, bludgeon or any other weapon'
- 'lands titles and coal mines'
- 'house office room or other place'
Comments
No comments have yet been made