1214 Words5 Pages
PART A) STEP ONE: IDENTIFY THE AREA OF THE LAW: The area of law relevant to this question is whether or not Thalia was in breach of the Celebrations Control Act 2007 (WA) by carrying an umbrella with her at a celebration in a park. STEP TWO: EXPLAIN THE PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW: Under the Celebrations Control Act 2007, section 10 states that “during celebrations of whatever kind it shall be illegal for a person to carry any weapon in any street, right of way or other place.” For a person to be in breach of the Celebrations Control Act 2007, they must satisfy each of the following criteria;  Be in possession of a weapon; a weapon being; -1: something (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy, 2: a means of contending against another);  There be a celebration taking place;  Be situated within a street, right of way or other place. STEP THREE: APPLY THE LAW: There a several ways for the courts to interpret statutes/acts, following one of the following common law rules of statutory interpretation;  THE LITERAL APPROACH: Where the words of the statute/act are given their ordinary/literal meaning  THE GOLDEN RULE: Where the words of the statute are given their literal meaning unless this leads to obscurity and absurd results, e.g. an error in the way the statute is worded. One such statute leading to such absurd results involved the question of stopping after a traffic accident, where the defendant claimed a momentary stop satisfied the criteria of the statute, with The Road Traffic Act 1960 (UK) required a driver to stop after being involved in a traffic accident. The courts determined that the requirement to ‘stop’ involved a driver stopping at the accident until all necessary requirements were seen to after the accident.  THE MISCHIEF RULE: Where the courts determine the behavior/activities
Open Document