Do you think it's risky to only learn precedent, stat and law reform?
Re sitting so I know del leg and eu came up last year so hoping neither come up again this year

You should be fine with those.

Reply 64

A sheesh

13

Can someine explain to me part b the five matkers? i know we need one cp and why and oone other point but do u need a case. Also do u require many cases to get a solid B/ low A? thanks

Reply 65

lil12345

can someone help me answer this question please
Describe the purposive approach using source A and other cases to illustrate your answer.

Reply 66

aysh_95

6

Original post by lil12345

can someone help me answer this question please
Describe the purposive approach using source A and other cases to illustrate your answer.

Purposive approach isn't actually an interpretation but construction as it applies where the meaning of the statute isnt't clear from the words. The courts try to discover the reason for which parliament passed the statute and then give the words a meaning to fulfil its purpose. This approach is fairly recent and and seen as a modern version of the mischief rule. It was introduced as a means of interpreting EU-law. Lord Denning promotes this approach in Magnor & St. Maellons v Newport Corporation. He said that they are sitting there to find the intention of parliament and carry it out. They are making progress by filling in the gaps and making sense of the enactement than by opening it up to destructive analysis. In R v Bentham D robbed A. Defendant pointed his finger covered by his jackets at A and wanted all his money. A believed his fingers were a gun. It doesn't matter whether it was a plastic gun or a biro, if it had the appearance of a firearm the jury were entitled to find the offence made out and D was giulty. In Rv registrar General ex parte smith an adopted person over 18 wanted a cooy of his birth certificate. Smith applies for it but he killed 2 people and he is suffering from an illness. He also killed his mother. Using purposive appr. he was denied to access his birt certificate as it would have been wrong for the courts to adhere to the true meaning of of the words used without giving thought to the consequences. In Bolton School v Evans a teacher hacked into a computer to demonstrate that the security was inadequate. He was dismissed. He then argued that his course of conduct as a whole should be regarded as an act of disclosure. But A who dismissed the teacher won because disclosure was a common word. The tribunal's appr. was wrongly based on the wording on purposive interpretation of the legislation and not based on the wording of the statute. R v sec. Of state they decided that organism created by the CNR cane within the definition of 'embryo' in the human embryology. Embryo means a live human embryo where fertilisation has been completed therefore CNR wasn't possible when the Act was passed and the problem was that fertilisation isnt used in CNR. ( to link to the source you just say : According to source A/B on the line of 2-5 or whatever it might be ... This and this happens in purposive approach.)

Helpful?

Reply 67

lil12345

Original post by aysh_95

Purposive approach isn't actually an interpretation but construction as it applies where the meaning of the statute isnt't clear from the words. The courts try to discover the reason for which parliament passed the statute and then give the words a meaning to fulfil its purpose. This approach is fairly recent and and seen as a modern version of the mischief rule. It was introduced as a means of interpreting EU-law. Lord Denning promotes this approach in Magnor & St. Maellons v Newport Corporation. He said that they are sitting there to find the intention of parliament and carry it out. They are making progress by filling in the gaps and making sense of the enactement than by opening it up to destructive analysis. In R v Bentham D robbed A. Defendant pointed his finger covered by his jackets at A and wanted all his money. A believed his fingers were a gun. It doesn't matter whether it was a plastic gun or a biro, if it had the appearance of a firearm the jury were entitled to find the offence made out and D was giulty. In Rv registrar General ex parte smith an adopted person over 18 wanted a cooy of his birth certificate. Smith applies for it but he killed 2 people and he is suffering from an illness. He also killed his mother. Using purposive appr. he was denied to access his birt certificate as it would have been wrong for the courts to adhere to the true meaning of of the words used without giving thought to the consequences. In Bolton School v Evans a teacher hacked into a computer to demonstrate that the security was inadequate. He was dismissed. He then argued that his course of conduct as a whole should be regarded as an act of disclosure. But A who dismissed the teacher won because disclosure was a common word. The tribunal's appr. was wrongly based on the wording on purposive interpretation of the legislation and not based on the wording of the statute. R v sec. Of state they decided that organism created by the CNR cane within the definition of 'embryo' in the human embryology. Embryo means a live human embryo where fertilisation has been completed therefore CNR wasn't possible when the Act was passed and the problem was that fertilisation isnt used in CNR. ( to link to the source you just say : According to source A/B on the line of 2-5 or whatever it might be ... This and this happens in purposive approach.)

Helpful?

thank you so much for ur help

Reply 68

aysh_95

6

Original post by A sheesh

Can someine explain to me part b the five matkers? i know we need one cp and why and oone other point but do u need a case. Also do u require many cases to get a solid B/ low A? thanks

When I did a 5 mark on literal rule golden rule etc i didnt say any cases and got full marks in my mock exams but it really depends cause other 5 markers like general rule and specific rule and context you will be credited for cases if you mention them!

Reply 69

aysh_95

6

Original post by CenserSladez

Does anybody have any model answers for the 15 markers for Statutory Interpretation?

Purposive approach isn't actually an interpretation but construction as it applies where the meaning of the statute isnt't clear from the words. The courts try to discover the reason for which parliament passed the statute and then give the words a meaning to fulfil its purpose. This approach is fairly recent and and seen as a modern version of the mischief rule. It was introduced as a means of interpreting EU-law. Lord Denning promotes this approach in Magnor & St. Maellons v Newport Corporation. He said that they are sitting there to find the intention of parliament and carry it out. They are making progress by filling in the gaps and making sense of the enactement than by opening it up to destructive analysis. In R v Bentham D robbed A. Defendant pointed his finger covered by his jackets at A and wanted all his money. A believed his fingers were a gun. It doesn't matter whether it was a plastic gun or a biro, if it had the appearance of a firearm the jury were entitled to find the offence made out and D was giulty. In Rv registrar General ex parte smith an adopted person over 18 wanted a cooy of his birth certificate. Smith applies for it but he killed 2 people and he is suffering from an illness. He also killed his mother. Using purposive appr. he was denied to access his birt certificate as it would have been wrong for the courts to adhere to the true meaning of of the words used without giving thought to the consequences. In Bolton School v Evans a teacher hacked into a computer to demonstrate that the security was inadequate. He was dismissed. He then argued that his course of conduct as a whole should be regarded as an act of disclosure. But A who dismissed the teacher won because disclosure was a common word. The tribunal's appr. was wrongly based on the wording on purposive interpretation of the legislation and not based on the wording of the statute. R v sec. Of state they decided that organism created by the CNR cane within the definition of 'embryo' in the human embryology. Embryo means a live human embryo where fertilisation has been completed therefore CNR wasn't possible when the Act was passed and the problem was that fertilisation isnt used in CNR. ( to link to the source y

Reply 70

lil12345

does anyone have any prediction on the type of questions that are likely to come up for statutory interpretation(if it comes up )

Reply 71

Tahidul

Is Statutory Interpretation guaranteed to come up then?

Reply 72

thiss1

10

Original post by Tahidul

Is Statutory Interpretation guaranteed to come up then?

its likely but you cant trust the examiners

Reply 73

Tahidul

Original post by thiss1

its likely but you cant trust the examiners

I guess i'll have to revise SI and JP :mad:

Reply 74

thiss1

10

yh,i hope these two topics come up

Reply 75

swagyolo420

16

Anybody know any cases showing examples of overruling and reversing?. I have got Balfour v Balfour and Merritt ve Merritt for distinguishing

Posted from TSR Mobile