Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Can someone tell me if what I think they want from me is what you think they want aswell?

    This is the question:


    The United Kingdom has been concerned at the amount of fatal injuries that have recently happened because of people not wearing safety helmets when riding bikes. In 1995 the United Kingdom became a signatory to the People Safety Treaty (fictitious). Parliament has recently passed the People Safety Act 2009 (fictitious) so that the People Safety Treaty (fictitious) has become legally binding. Section 1(1) of the Act states:

    It shall be an offence to fail to wear a safety helmet whilst in control of a bicycle, skateboard or other such vehicle

    Consider this provision with regards to:

    1.Tom, who was delivering a bicycle to a bike shop. He was carrying the bike and the police arrested him. He was convicted and appeals.

    2.**** was riding a bike but had a safety hat (from a construction site) on. He, like Tom, was arrested and convicted and also appeals.

    3.Harriet had just bought a new hover board, which floats on the air and does not have wheels. These were not available for purchase before the Act was passed. She was not wearing a safety helmet and was convicted. She also wants to appeal the decision.

    Counsel for the appellants wishes to cite a Canadian Supreme Court case (fictitious) that defines what type of headgear that can be classed as a safety helmet. They also wish to cite the American Civil Safety Code (fictitious) which provides a comprehensive list of safety helmets. There is also a recent Australian negligence case (fictitious) that states that a hover board is not the same as a bike because it is mechanically propelled.

    Discuss the rules and other aids used in statutory interpretation which the judges, in the Court of Appeal, could use to help them arrive at a decision in each of the appeals.
    I'm thinking they want me to outline the "rules" Judges use to interperate statue, discuss the various sources like Hansard, case law etc etc and then say how the three cases are likely to be decided. Is that correct?

    The thing that's knocking my confidence is that if this act is ficticious, how could I look at most of the sources like Hansard and briefing notes as they won't actually exist?? It's tempting to not draw any conclusions but then I'm scared of failing it!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    BTW not asking for the answers, just what the question is LOL My confidence is really low now because I got only 55% of my first legal founds assignment.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Anyone want to offer a view?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hi, Iam Doing The Same Assignment And I Totally Agree With You. We Cant Apply To Much To The Cases Of The 3, However We Can Just Write The Rules, Approaches, Rules Of Language, Ex/in Aids. And Apply To The Cases As Much As We Can.. We Can Only Look At What Is Stated On The Essay.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: February 16, 2010
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.