Law Unit 01 Case Names

Home > Preview

The flashcards below were created by user itzzryan212 on FreezingBlue Flashcards.


  1. WHITELY V CHAPPELL
    D was charged under a statute making it an offence to impersonate any person 'entitled to vote' D had pretended to be a person whose name was on the voter's list but who had died. The court decided that D was not guilty since a dead person was not in the literal meaning of the words, 'entitled to vote'.
  2. FISHER V BELL
    D had displayed a flick knife marked with a price in his shop window. He was charged under a statue for making an 'offer for sale' of the flick knife. There is a technical legal meaning for 'offer for sale' which comes from contract law in which putting an article in a shop window is not an offer to sell. The court used the literal rule and applied the technical legal meaning of 'offer for sale' from contract law. This meant that D was not guilty for making an 'offer for sale'.
  3. ADLER V GEORGE
    GOLDEN RULE (narrow way);

    D was caught inside an RAF base staging a protest. He was accused under a statute with obstructing a member of the armed forces 'in the vicinity of' the base. His defence was that as he was inside the RAF base, he could not be 'in the vicinity' as this meant 'near to'. The court held that 'in the vicinity' could mean 'near to' or 'near to and within' and chose the second meaning to secure a conviction.
  4. RE SIGSWORTH
    GOLDEN RULE (wider way);

    D had murdered his mother, them mother had not made a will so normally her estate would have been inherited by her next of kin according to the rules set out in a statute. There was no ambiguity in the words of the Act, but it would not be in the public's interest to let a murderer benefit from his crime, so it was held that the literal rule should not apply. Instead, using the golden rule in a wider way, the court modified the clear wording of the Act to prevent the son inheriting the estate.
  5. SMITH V HUGHES
    Mischief rule was used to interpret the offence of a prostitute soliciting ‘in a street or public place’. The court considered appeals by two women. One had been attracting male customers from a balcony and the other had been at the window of a ground floor room. The court decided that they had been rightly convicted by magistrates because the mischief aimed at by the statute was to enable people to walk along the streets without being harassed by prostitutes. Thus the statute was interpreted to stop this ‘mischief’. It did not matter that the women were not literally on the street. They could be seen from the street.
  6. ROYAL COLLEGE OF NURSING V DHSS
    A statute provided that a lawful abortion could be carried out by a ‘registered medical practitioner’. This clearly covered doctors, but what about nurses? Advances in medical science meant that from the early 1970s surgical abortions by doctors were largely replaced with abortions using drugs by nurses, without a doctor being present. On appeal, a majority of judges interpreted the relevant statute to stop the mischief of illegal abortions where no medical care was available and allow nurses to carry out abortions in a hospital.
  7. COLTMAN V BIBBY TANKERS
    a statute imposed liability on an employer for the death of an employee caused by defective equipment supplied by that employer. C died when a ship he was working on capsized because it had a defective hull, and the court had to decide whether a ship was ‘equipment’. The relevant Act contained a definition section, which defined ‘equipment’, but this did not refer to a ship. Despite this oversight by Parliament, the judges held that ‘equipment’ could include a ship. The company was liable because the general purpose of the Act was to make the employer liable for harm caused by defects in anything provided by the employer.
  8. R v REGISTRAR-GENERAL, EX PARTE SMITH
    D was a violent murderer who had mental health problems. Having found out that he was adopted, Smith tried to find out the identity of his natural mother which he was entitled to know under the ADOPTION ACT 1976. The Registrar-General refused. Despite the fact that Smith was entitled to this information under the wording of the statute, the court held that it would go against the general purpose of the statute to provide information to someone who might, at some stage, use it to cause harm.
  9. POWELL V KEMPTON PARK RACECOURSE
    D was charged with keeping a ‘house, office, room or other place for betting’. He had been operating betting outside at a racecourse. The court decided that the general words ‘other place’ had to refer to indoor places since all the words in the list were indoor places and so D was not guilty.
  10. BROMLEY LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL V GREATER LONDON COUNCIL
    the issue was whether the GLC could operate a cheap fare scheme on their transport systems, where the amounts being charged meant that the transport system would run at a loss. The decision in the case revolved around the meaning of the word ‘economic’. The court looked at the whole statute and, in particular, at another section which imposed a duty to make up any shortfall as far as possible. As a result they decided that ‘economic’ meant being run on business lines and so ruled that the cheap fares policy was unlawful.
  11. PEPPER V HART
    The case where HANSARD was able to be consulted in limited circumstances (useful for the purposive approach)

Card Set Information

Author:
itzzryan212
ID:
316157
Filename:
Law Unit 01 Case Names
Updated:
2016-03-02 17:54:29
Tags:
law
Folders:
Law,Unit1,Statutory Interpretation
Description:
aqa law flashcards
Show Answers:

Home > Flashcards > Print Preview