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.
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!