Non- substantive law

Constitutional Reform Act 2005

Constitutional Reform Act 2005

recognised the rule of law and the importance of an independent judiciary. It created the supreme court and changed the role of the lord chancellor.

The Human Rights Act 1998

arguably a limitation of parliamentary sovereignty. But requires judges to read law as compatible where possible and where not can only lead to a declaration of incompatibility.

The Scotland Act 1998 and The Wales Act 1998

examples of devolution which is seen as a limitation of parliamentary sovereignty.

Pinner v Everett

Literal rule should be the first to be used

Fisher v Bell

Literal rule case, interpreted the words "offer for sale" in the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1969 so as to exclude invitations to treat.

LNER v Berriman

V was a railway worker who was working on a track maintaining and oiling the points, but was killed by a train. Under the Fatal Accidents Act, only people "relaying or repairing" tracks were entitled to a lookout, and the V's wife claimed she was entitled to compensation. However under the literal rule the Ds hadnt broken the law. ABSURD RESULT

Adler v George

Golden Rule Broad Approach where meaning is changed. To avoid an absurdity "in the vicinity of" should be interpreted to include "in" the base.

R v Allan

Golden Narrow - "To marry" was interpreted as the ceremony of marriage to avoid absurdity.

Heydon's Case (1584)

The mischief rule -set out 4 things a court should ask to find the mischief. 1) what was the common law? 2) what was the problem the common law failed to address prior to the act? 3) what remedy did the law create; 4) what was the true reason for the remedy.

Smith v Hughes

Mischief case. Prostitutes still causing mischief to people 'on the streets'. Court interpreted "in a street" under the Street Offences Act 1959 to include a private balcony

Jones v Tower Boot Co

"course of employment" in Race Discrimination Act shall include anything that happens at work in order to give effect to Parliament's intent.

RCN v DHSS

Mischief Rule - Act was tying to stop 'backstreet abortions' Also a case where the long title was used.

Pepper v Hart (1993)

-the practice statement was used to overrule a previous ban in the case of Davis v Johnson on the use of Hansard for the purpose of statutory interpretation

BRB v Herrington (1972)

Used 1966 Practice statement to overrule Addie v Dumbrek over whether a land owner owed a duty to a child trespasser.

Young v Bristol Aeroplane (1944)

Set out 3 circumstances where the CofA can depart is own judgement.

1. Where there are conflicting decisions in past COA cases, the court can choose which it will follow and which it will reject - occurred in Starmark Enterprises v CPL Enterprises (2001)

2. Where there is a SC/HOL decision which effectively overrules a COA decision it must follow SC/HOL - occurred in Family Housing Association v Jones (1990)

3. Where the decision was made per incurium, the the COA does not have to follow its previous decision - means when the previous decision was made without reference to an Act of Parliament or precedent - occurred in Williams v Fawcett (1985)

4. (Rickards v Rickards 1989 said this exception should only be used in rare and exceptional circumstances)

R v Howe (1987)

Linked to Obiter Dicta

HL said duress could not be a defence to murder (ratio decidendi), Then said wouldn't have allowed it for attempted murder either (obiter dicta) This was then followed in R v Gotts.

Merritt v Merritt

Distinguished the case of Balfour v Balfour. Thereby avoiding the precedent and creating a second one.

The Criminal Appeal Act 1995

Leave to appeal must be granted to the D by the CoA if they think the conviction is unsafe.

Criminal Justice Act 2003

Set out aims of sentencing - s.142 - punishment; reduction of crime; reform and rehabilitation; protection of public; reparation to victim.

R v Young (Stephen) (1995)

D charged with murder of two people. Jury had to stay in hotel overnight as not reached verdict. Members held a séance with a oujia board to try and contact dead victims. Next day returned a guilty verdict. Fact of oujia board became known, CoA quashed verdict and ordered re-trial of case. Able to inquire as in hotel room not jury room.

Rv Abdroikof

Police, lawyers etc are allowed on jury. But shouldn't be working on a case where they know the police etc. test is "whether the fairminded and informed observer... would conclude that there was a real possibility of bias.

Ponting's Case

Juror's equity (fairness) in refusing to convict a technically guilty defendent.

R v Kronlid and others (1996)

Jurors equity/ perverse decision. The defendants admitted they had caused £1.5 million damage to a plane. They pleaded not guilty to charges of criminal damage on the basis that they were preventing the plane from being sent to Indonesia where it would have been used in attacks against the people of East Timor. The jury acquitted them

R v Karakaya (2005)

Discovered that a juror had done Internet search at home. Brought information into jury room and was available while discussing verdict. Print-outs discovered by jury bailiff. CoA held contravened fundamental rule that no evidence was to be introduced after jury had retired. Conviction quashed as unsafe.

DPP v Paul (1989)

local knowledge of magistrates useful in determining whether curb crawling was likely to be a nuisance.

Bingham Justices ex parte Jowitt

magistrates are casehardened and biased. In this case the magistrate said where it was one word against another his policy was to always believe the police.