Case Commentary HelpWatch this thread
I have been asked to provide a summary on the following case/question: ‘To what extent are you satisfied with the reasoning of the courts in Royal College of Nursing of the United Kingdom v Department of Health and Social Security  AC 800?'
To my understanding, I can choose to evaluate the case through any of the following so long as I back my evaluative arguments through primary legislature:
1) Consider how the Court of Appeal interpreted the phrase ‘abortion when a pregnancy is terminated by’ in section 1 of the 1967 act with respect to treatment more generally and/or remote supervision. To what extent do you agree that the Court of Appeal judges used the most appropriate method of statutory interpretation?
2) Consider how the Court of Appeal interpreted the phrase ‘registered medical practitioner’ in section 1 of the 1967 act. To what extent do you agree that the Court of Appeal judges used the most appropriate method of statutory interpretation? What if the register of nurses had already been in place in 1981?
3) Lords Wilberforce and Edmund-Davies both held that the Court of Appeal decision should be upheld. To what extent are you convinced by their reasoning in doing so?
4)To what extent are you satisfied that the method of statutory interpretation used by Lords Diplock, Keith of Kinkel and Roskill was the most appropriate?
I'm having slight problems knowing where exactly to start, or what primary legislature or comparative law to look for to support my argument(s), so any help whatsoever would be much appreciated.
More law resources on TSR