Aqa law unit 1 model answers

those are the same topics I am doing are u in AS


a thx alot

The literal rule gives all words in a statute their natural and ordinary dictionary meaning even though the use of such meaning may lead to a manifest absurd result. In R v Judge of the City of London Court, Lord Esher stated that “If the words of an act are clear, then you must follow them even though it may lead to a manifest absurdity”.
The literal rule was demonstrated in the case of Whitley v Chapel. An act made it an offence to impersonate any person entitled to vote at an election, the defendant voted in the name of a deceased person. The courts applied the literal rule, and found that Chapel was not caught by the statute as “person entitled to vote” would exclude the deceased.
It was also demonstrated in LNER v Berriman; where the claimant’s husband was killed while he was working on a railway line doing “maintenance work and oiling points”. She claimed a lookout should have been provided. The Fatal Accidents Act 1846 states a look out should be provided for “relaying and repairing”. The courts adopted the literal rule and held that a lookout was not necessary as “maintenance work and oiling points” was not “relaying and repairing”.

The golden rule is a modification of the literal rule, and it can only be applied once the literal rule is used and has produced a manifest absurdity. There are two approaches to the rule; the narrow and the broad.
The narrow approach is used where a word within a statute is capable of having more than one meaning; the courts can select the meaning which avoids the absurd result. If the word has only one meaning, then the courts must apply that meaning. In R v Allen, the OATPA 1861 made it an offence to marry again without previous marriage ending in death or divorce. But Allen’s argument was that he did not legally marry the second time, he only went through a ceremony of marriage. The court found that “marry” also meant to go through a ceremony of marriage. The courts selected this meaning and Allen was guilty. This avoided the absurd result.
The broad approach is used where the words have a clear meaning but the meaning would lead to a repugnant situation. The courts may modify the words to avoid the absurdity. In Re Sigsworth, the Administration of Estates Act 1925 stated next of kin (issue) should inherit an estate. Although the next of kin had murdered his mother in order to claim her estate; she had no will. The courts held that “issue” would not be entitled to inherit where a murderer benefited from murder; this solved the repugnant situation by modifying the words.

The mischief rule allows the courts to look at the gap in the law that Parliament intended to fill when passing the act. They then interpret the act to fill the gap or to remedy the mischief parliament intended to remedy. In Heydon’s Case, the rule was set out into 4 points; What was the common law before the passing of the act? What was the mischief not covered in that common law, what was the remedy Parliament proposed, and what were the true reasons for that remedy?
In Smith v Hughes, The Street Offences Act 1959 made it an offence to solicit in a street or public. Hughes solicited men from her balcony and window, she argued she was not in the street or public. But the courts held that the mischief not covered in the common law was aimed at stopping people from being harassed in the streets. Therefore she was found guilty of her acts.
In Royal College of Nursing v DHSS, the Abortion Act 1967 stated abortions must only be carried out by “registered medical practitioners” ie doctors. Nurses assisted in abortions by carrying out drip feeding drugs as part of their medical inductions. The court held that the remedy Parliament proposed was to prevent unsafe ‘back-street’ abortions, so the nurses were not guilty.

The purpose approach is a modern descendant of the mischief rule; this goes beyond the mischief rule in that judges are deciding what they believed parliament intended to achieve when passing the new law even though said intention does not appear in the wording of the act according to Magor and St Mellons v Newport Corporation.
In R v Mullan & Others, four defendants were charged with being members of a proscribed terrorist organisation. The Terrorism Act 2009 listed IRA as one such organisation. However, the defendants claimed they were members of the “Real IRA”, and the Northern Ireland Sentencing Act 1998 expressly distinguished the difference between the two. The court of appeal decided that the intention by Parliament was to ban all terrorist organisations covered by the generic term ‘IRA’.
In Ghaidan v Mendoza, a gay man sought to take over the statutory tenancy of his long term (now deceased) male partner under The Rent Act 1997. This act allows a statutory tenancy to be transferred to the surviving spouse of the original tenant. The House of Lords held spouse should be read as if to include same sx partners even though it was not the natural meaning. This was the only decision compatible with The Human Rights Act 1998.

Nope i'm in A2 but i'm redoing this unit cause I got a C when I was predicted an A