LEFO MCT

The Supreme Court has just handed down its judgment in the case of R v Price (fictitious case). The Court of Appeal had dismissed the defendant’s appeal, but the Supreme Court allowed it.

Reversing

The Court of Appeal has just handed down its judgment in the case of R v Smith (fictitious case). The Court of Appeal had previously established legal precedent, but departed from the precedent in this case.

Departing

The Supreme Court has just handed down its judgment in the case of R v Burn (fictitious case). The Supreme Court had previously established legal precedent, but decided to overturn the precedent in this case.

Overruling

The High Court has just handed down its judgment in the case of R v Jones (fictitious case). The High Court had previously established legal precedent, but rendered the previous decision to be inapplicable to the new case.

Distinguishing

A District Judge is hearing a civil case in the Cardiff County Court. The case of Lewis v Jenkins (fictitious case), a decision of the Supreme Court in January 2023, supports the claimant’s case. A statute, which came into force in March 2023, supports the defendant’s case. 

How should the District Judge decide the case?

Apply the statute in favour of the defendant

A judge hearing a case in the Court of Appeal is faced with two conflicting precedents which are analogous in facts and legal issues to the case they are hearing. One precedent (Case X) is a judgment of the Court of Appeal from 2015. The other (Case Y) is a Supreme Court judgment from 2016. 

 

It is clear from the judgments of the Supreme Court in Case Y that the Supreme Court in that case did not agree with the reasoning employed in Case X, even though it did not actually consider or overrule Case X. 

 

What should the Court of Appeal do?

It should follow Case Y under one of the exceptions in Young v Bristol Aeroplane (Doctrine of precedent of equal authority)

Which ONE of the following statements accurately describes the outcome of the case of R v Kennedy [2008] 1 AC 269:

1) HoL Distinguished CoA decision

2) HoL Allowed appeal

3) HoL Dismissed appeal

4) HoL Approved CoA decision

2) The House of Lords allowed the appeal

In the course of a trial various arguments are put to the judge as to the exact meaning of a particular section of a relevant statute. When deciding the case, the judge first looks at the natural ordinary meaning of the words used. However, such an interpretation of those words results in an absurd meaning being given to the section. The judge therefore, in coming to his decision, interprets the words in a different way which does not result in an absurd meaning. 

 

The application of which of the following rules of statutory interpretation has been used by the judge?

The golden rule

David was recently charged with drunk cycling, contrary to the Road Traffic Act 2014. He received a summons to appear in Cardiff Magistrates’ Court to answer this charge. The summons stated that he was being prosecuted for driving a pedal cycle under the influence of alcohol. Although David is not contesting the fact that he was drunk at the time of his arrest, he is challenging the fact that he acted in contravention of the law, as he was cycling a balance bike, which has no pedals.  

The application of which of the following rules of statutory interpretation will allow the Court to find David guilty of this offence?  

The mischief rule

John was recently charged under the Hunting Act 2004. He was riding a horse in the countryside, carrying a gun to shoot any foxes that his dogs pursue. The Oxford Dictionary defines hunting as ‘pursuing wild animals for sport or food… using a horse for hunting.’

The application of which of the following rules of statutory interpretation will allow the Court to find John guilty of this offence?

The literal rule

Frank was acquitted following a trial in Cardiff Magistrates’ Court. The magistrates found that no offence had been committed. The prosecution intends to appeal on a point of law, asserting that the magistrates’ decision was wrong in law. 

 

Which court would hear the appeal?

Administrative Court of the King’s Bench Division of the High Court

Frank’s case later has an appeal made from a decision in the High Court.

Which court would hear the appeal?

Supreme Court

Paul was convicted following a trial in Cardiff Crown Court. Paul wants to appeal the decision on a point of law.

Which court would hear the appeal?

Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal

Stanley was convicted following a trial in Swansea Magistrates’ Court, by a bench of three lay magistrates. Stanley intends to appeal against his conviction. 

 

Which court would hear the appeal?

Crown Court

Liam is charged with theft, which is an either way offence. He intends to enter a not guilty plea.

Which ONE of the following statements correctly sets out what will happen at his first appearance in the Magistrates' Court?

1) When he pleads not guilty, the magistrates will hold an allocation hearing. If they decide his case is suitable for summary trial, Liam may accept trial in the Magistrates’ Court or ask to be tried in the Crown Court.

2) When he pleads not guilty, a date will be set for his trial in the Magistrates’ Court.

3) When he pleads not guilty, the magistrates will send him to the Crown Court for trial.

4) When he pleads not guilty, the magistrates will proceed to sentence him.

1) When he pleads not guilty, the magistrates will hold an allocation hearing. If they decide his case is suitable for summary trial, Liam may accept trial in the Magistrates’ Court or ask to be tried in the Crown Court.

Charlotte entered into a contract with ABC Kitchens. ABC Kitchens agreed to supply and install a new kitchen in Charlotte's house in Cardiff. Charlotte is alleging that ABC Kitchens have not completed all of the agreed work and that what they have completed, is not of a good standard. She hasn't informed ABC Kitchens of what she says the specific issues are. This is because she is very angry and wishes to issue proceedings for breach of contract against ABC Kitchens immediately. She estimates the value of her claim to be £20,000. 

 

Which ONE of the following statements about alternative dispute resolution (ADR) is incorrect?

1) The court would be under a duty to encourage the parties to use ADR in this case.

2) Settling the dispute without resorting to litigation could help Charlotte and ABC Kitchens to maintain a future relationship.

3) Mediation may be a suitable form of ADR in this case as a mediator could facilitate the negotiation of an agreement between the parties, helping them to settle their dispute.

4) The court could force the parties to engage in ADR in this case as there is an emphasis on settling disputes in civil cases.

4) The court could force the parties to engage in ADR in this case as there is an emphasis on settling disputes in civil cases.

Parliament passes a new law giving prison governors the power to extend prisoners’  sentences as a sanction for acts of bad behaviour whilst in prison. This appears to be in contravention of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) and Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to Liberty and security of person). A prisoners’ rights group wishes to challenge the legislation.

 

Which statement best reflects the constitutional position?

1) Parliament could be subject to an application for judicial review and the court could make a mandatory order that the legislation be repealed where it is incompatible with the HRA.

2) The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty means that parliament can pass any law without judicial intervention.

3) The HRA gives an exception to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty and the court can strike out incompatible legislation.

4) The court could issue a declaration of incompatibility of the legislation with the ECHR which would signal to Parliament that it should amend the legislation.

4) The court could issue a declaration of incompatibility of the legislation with the ECHR which would signal to Parliament that it should amend the legislation.

The Caravan Act 2011 (fictitious Act) combined three previous statutes. It also incorporated and amended principles of common law and custom in relation to caravans. Is this a codifying Act or a consolidating Act?

Codifying Act

Is the Caravan Act 2011 (fictitious Act) primary or secondary legislation?

Primary legislation

The Supreme Court grants an injunction to stop a company constructing a building over a pond which is an endangered animal’s habitat. The judge states that if it had been possible to preserve the pond (it was not possible in this case), he may have allowed the building to take place around it. 

 

Are these comments binding?

The comments will not be binding but may be persuasive in later cases

A judge hearing a case in the High Court is asked by the claimant's barrister to follow a decision of the Court of Appeal in a previous case. The defendant's barrister asserts that the facts of the two cases are very different and asks the judge not to follow the decision of the Court of Appeal. The judge is persuaded by the arguments made by the defendant's barrister. She takes the view that the facts of the two cases are sufficiently different to warrant not following the decision of the Court of Appeal.

The High Court judge may do what regarding the decision of the Court of Appeal?

Distinguish

In the Court of Appeal, three judges have just given their judgments. Their concluding comments are:

 

Lord Justice Morris: "Accordingly, I reject Mr Tudful’s appeal."

Lord Justice Beynon: "…on this basis, I allow the appeal."

Lord Justice Roberts: "Accordingly I would reject the appeal." (but for different reasons to those used by Morris LJ.) 

What decision has been made?

Majority decision with Lord Justice Beynon dissenting

Can Parliament vote to pass a law which will stop future parliaments agreeing to public referendums on constitutional issues?

No, Parliament cannot bind future Parliaments with any law that it passes

Which of the following is the most accurate as a state of the ratio decidendi for R v Kennedy [2008] 1 AC 269:

1) That the Appellant’s conviction for manslaughter would be quashed.

2) Whether a person can be found guilty of manslaughter where that person has been involved in the supply of a Class A controlled drug, which is then freely and voluntarily self-administered by the person to whom it was supplied, and the administration of the drug then causes his death?

3) That a person who supplies a Class A controlled drug, which is then freely and voluntarily self-administered by a fully informed and responsible adult - thereby causing his own death, cannot be found guilty of unlawful act manslaughter.

4) The Appellant supplied and prepared a dose of heroin and handed the deceased a syringe ready for injection. The deceased injected himself and died, in part, as a consequence of taking the drug.

3) That a person who supplies a Class A controlled drug, which is then freely and voluntarily self-administered by a fully informed and responsible adult - thereby causing his own death, cannot be found guilty of unlawful act manslaughter.

Kim slipped on the wet floor inside a florist’s called Blooms R Us. She broke her arm when she fell and has commenced proceedings against Blooms R Us. Olivia’s solicitor has valued her claim for personal injuries as being in the region of £5,000. 

 

To which track is the claim likely to be allocated?

Fast track

Craig was unsuccessful in his claim for damages in a contractual dispute and wishes to appeal the decision. The matter was originally heard by a District Judge and was allocated to the fast track in the County Court. 

 

Where would the appeal be heard?

In the County Court, by a higher-level judge.