Mapla (LRW) - Summary Legal Reasoning and Writing PDF

Preview

Summary

notes I took during a revision session of the entire course. ...

Description

MAPLA My answer 2.1 a) - under S155 it says anyone has committed an offence if they were to sale or supply liquor to minors. The object / purpose of the Act is to decrease the amount of liquor abuse. Under the section, Pimm’s actions were a breach if the Act however, he has not committed an offence. This is because the party was hosted by Paris’s mother, and the objection of the Act is to create some kind of restriction on alcohol abuse, and it is quite clear that in the presence of the mum and other parents, there will be no abuse of liquor. The purpose of the Act can overrule specific sections in an Act. b) - Bet’s action is both in breach of S167(1) and 169(1). Under S167 it said clearly that some of the “guests become noticeably intoxicated.” The section states that anyone is liable for the offence if the licensee or a manager allows any person to become intoxicated. Under S169 anyone is liable for an offence if they were to sell alcohol in a glass vessel which is not a drinking vessel. It is obvious that Bet’s actions also satisfies this section because a syringe is not designed to be drank out of thus it is not a “drinking vessel”.

Suggested answer 2.1 -

Under S155(2) [or S155(1) if you assume Bett is a manager] the handing over of the 2 bottle amount to a supply. Utilise tools of interpretation to provide an explanatory of the word “supply” under S155 (2) X discussion of contextual approach , purposive approach and ordinary meaning.

-

Make a distinction between handing over of the bottle of liquor vs handing over the bottle in the present left behind. (write this point if you are going for high marks)

-

A lot of student thought the exemption under S157 would apply because Paris have parent at party. NO!!! Only applies if parent themselves supply the liquor. Not par of answer, a lot of student wrote this. Its wrong!!

c) - whether the plastic syringes amounted to a drinking vessel under S169 --> no issue in the quantities applied 2.2 Ordinary approach: “drinking vessel” would not include plastic syring Purposive approach: include any mediums through which the drinking of the liquor can be consumed, thus covering syringe. What the examiner is looking for: locate relevant sections and set out how the element of the section are met 2.2 Whether regulation 14 was within the legal power prescribed by S229. Regulation 14 permitted entry of inspection in the casee of a supported breach of part of S229 Do apply a NARROW interpretation of that provision looking at the immediate facts Contextual approach (expression & noscuitur & euisdem generis) cover a narrow range of (activities) when looking at class created. If the regulation was then considered as a licensed premises (upstairs room is not part of the licensed premises). -

Property right= the private home is not part of the bar thus not open for examination.

State interpretation format I – identify the issue. i.e. whether John is guilty of discharging a firearm with intent to cause bodily harm under section X of Crime’s Act. L – under section X, an offender is guilty of discharging a firearm with intention to cause bodily harm. Define key words. i.e. fire arm= …… , bodily harm= ….. A – in the facts it appears ….. i.e. in the context, a bb gun would / wouldn’t be considered as a firearm under S X of the Crimes Act because it satisfies…….. C – john is guilty of discharging a firearm under S X of the Crimes Act.

Statute interpretation techniques. Ordinary meaning: narrow approach – don’t look past the ordinary meaning of the word. Purposive Approach (S5(1) of the interpretation act) – the words of the provision are read with a view to giving effect to the purpose of the legislation. (locate, assert purpose parliament intended). -

Using purpose section / long title / read Act as a whole. Therefore S X would Y as this lies in context with parliament’s purpose.

Contextual approach -

Noscuitur = A word is known by the company it keeps. Form category by yourself. Eusidem generis = non natural approach contains a list of words derives a certain category / meaning that is then refered to by the qualifying phrase (naming the categories / class that is drawn by the group). have a LIST. “and all other…..” the category is given to you… you don’t have to form it by yourself

Ambulatory approach = concept remains the same, content changes. Expressio = explicit specific. i.e. “no hot food” so cold food is allowed. Rule of last resort – later provision prevails. [parliament’s current intention]

Fundamental common law rights -

Freedom of property Right to a fair hearing Privacy Freedom of speech Freedom of expression Presumption against retrospectivity No advantage from own wrong Solicitor client privilege Access to the courts

^^^^^^ fundamental common law rights exists alongside legislation. They cannot override the explicit wording of Acts. Can override if parliament expresses it’s intention to enable the overriding of the Act. Penal statue = they should always be given a narrow interpretation of all the provision should have their intended affect. Material facts = use facts that make the situation broader to allow application of other scenarios. -

ONLY include the facts that will affect the outcome of the judge’s decision.

Issue – what the court is trying to workout Ratio – principle of law achieved by the court’s decision Precedent values – binding precedent -

Persuasive precedent (any case from outside of NZ)

Obiter – not necessary to be followed.

R v Hansen [1] find parliaments meaning - to reduce the occurance of gang violence [2] decide whether parliament’s meaning, is inconsistent with BORA - parliament’s intended meaning appears to contravene the right to freedom of expression under S14 of NZBORA. [3] is the purpose of the limiting measure important enough to: 1. justify a limit to freedom of expression (importance of limiting meaning) 2. how important is the effect of applying the law. Verify the extent of limitation. [4] if you decide that parliament’s limitation is justified then parliament’s purpose in [1] is valid *either way; keep going through all the steps until the end [5] if the inconsistency is deemed as unjustified, look for meaning that is consistent with [freedom of expression] that provides the least restriction of the freedom of expression in line with S14 of NZBORA. - FOR HIGH MARKS ONLY – if you cannot find a less restrictive meaning, the meaning in part [1] must apply....