Legal Research and Writing – Week 2: Sources, Case Reading & (F)IRAC

Sources of Law in Australia

• Two primary sources operate concurrently and inter-dependently:
  • Legislation / Statute
  • Rules enacted directly by a parliament.
  • Includes delegated legislation where parliament formally authorises another body (e.g. local councils) to make rules on particular topics.
  • Exists at both Commonwealth and State/Territory levels.
    • Should a State Act conflict with a valid Commonwealth Act, the Commonwealth prevails (s.109 Constitution) provided the Commonwealth law is within its constitutional powers.
  • Read subject to the rules of statutory interpretation (covered in LAWS1010), e.g. literal rule, purposive approach, presumptions, extrinsic materials.
  • Hierarchy: legislation overrides the common law whenever both speak to the same point.
  • Case Law / Common Law / Precedent
  • Judicially-created rules that fill gaps or develop principles where no statute exists, and that guide statutory interpretation.
  • Embodies centuries of doctrinal development—an acknowledgment that “law is more than legislation.”
  • Promotes coherency and consistency through the doctrine of precedent.

Binding v Persuasive Authority

• Binding (ratio decidendi)
  • The reason for the decision—the legal principle necessary to dispose of the case.
  • Binding on later lower courts within the same hierarchy.
• Persuasive
  • Obiter dicta: judicial remarks not strictly necessary to the outcome.
  • Reasoning of dissenting or minority judges (they write as if in the majority, so a seeming ratio may in fact be persuasive only).
  • Decisions from:
  • Lower courts
  • Courts in a different Australian jurisdiction
  • Foreign courts

Interaction Between Sources

• Statutes and cases work “hand-in-hand.”
  • Courts constantly cite prior cases when applying or interpreting legislation, both for general interpretive principles and for precedents on similarly worded provisions.
  • Historical example: the Magna Carta (pictured slide) is a foundational source later invoked by courts when articulating rule-of-law principles.

(F)IRAC / IRAC Framework

• Acronym variants: FIRAC, IRAC, ILAC, IPAC—all denote the same logical structure; inclusion of “F” is a stylistic choice.
• Common student error: front-loading all facts in “F.” Only include trigger facts—those that raise a legal question.

Components

• F – Facts
  • Identify the key events creating the legal problem for the parties.
• I – Issues
  • Frame the precise legal questions:
  • “What is the meaning of the rule/exception?”
  • “Does the rule/exception apply to these facts?”
• R – Rules / Relevant Law
  • Statutory provisions, common-law principles, and any relevant exceptions or overarching doctrines.
• A – Application / Analysis / Argument
  • Apply the rules to each issue.
  • Acknowledge the existence of two sides; craft arguments for and against and evaluate.
• C – Conclusion
  • Provide a definitive answer—not “there are arguments on both sides.”
  • Form changes with context:
  • Client advice → probabilities (e.g. “strong prospects of success”).
  • Court submission → persuasive conclusion (e.g. “the court should find for X”).

Problem Questions ≡ Reading Judgments

• Solving a hypothetical & dissecting a real judgment require the SAME analytic steps:
  1. Identify material facts.
  2. State legal issues raised.
  3. Extract governing rules.
  4. Apply rules to reach a reasoned outcome.
• When you read a judgment you are effectively reading a model IRAC answer authored by a judge and you must reverse-engineer its F, I, R, A, C elements.

Quick Example 1 – Sarah Swears in the Park

• Facts (F)
  • Sarah trips in a public park, injures her knee and tears new trousers; instinctively utters “Bugger.”
  • Present are children and elderly Ethel, who complains to Constable Clean.
  • Officer issues an administrative infringement notice: \$1000 fine.
  • Based on valid Council Regulation: “Anyone who uses obscene language in the Park will be subject to a \$1000 fine.”
• Potential Issues (I)
  • What constitutes “obscene language” under the regulation? Is “Bugger” captured?
  • Is the regulation constitutionally or administratively valid?
  • Is there an implied freedom of political communication or other constitutional defence?
• Rules (R)
  • Text and purpose of the local law.
  • Common-law/legislative definitions of obscenity.
  • Any charter- or constitution-based freedom, e.g. implied freedom of political communication in Lange v ABC.
  • Administrative law principles: natural justice, jurisdictional error.
• Application (A)
  • Argue for Sarah: “Bugger” is mild expletive, culturally normal, arguably not obscene; regulation aimed at gross profanity.
  • Council’s perspective: regulation worded broadly; presence of children heightens offensiveness.
• Conclusion (C)
  • To be decided once authoritative definitions are consulted (class exercise).
• Real-world link: Lim v Regina [2017] NSWDC 231 – statute controlling offensive language remains controversial.

Ethical / Policy Angle

• Balances public decency vs freedom of expression; raises question of whether criminal sanctions are proportionate for minor profanity.

Quick Example 2 – Martin the Macaw

• Facts (F)
  • Sarah owns Martin the tame macaw (inherited from her uncle, who habitually swore).
  • In the park a boy exclaims “ouch”; Martin repeats uncle’s string of profanities.
  • Same regulation invoked; Sarah again fined \$1000.
• Issues (I)
  1. Does language spoken by an animal constitute “use” of obscene language by Sarah under the regulation?
  2. If yes, is strict liability imposed? What mental element (mens rea) is required?
  3. Is the regulation ultra vires if applied to conduct beyond human control?
• Rules (R)
  • Textual interpretation principles: literal, purposive, absurdity avoidance.
  • Authorities on vicarious or derivative liability (e.g. owner responsibility for animal behaviour).
  • Absence/presence of fault element under the enabling Act.
  • Comparative precedent: Miles v City Council of Augusta, Georgia 710\,F.2d\,1452 (11th Cir 1983).
• Application (A)
  • For Council: phrase “Anyone who uses obscene language” can encompass “causes to be used” or “permits” via owner negligence.
  • For Sarah: ordinary meaning restricts “use” to volitional human speech; an animal cannot form intent; owner lacked foresight; purposive interpretation should exculpate.
• Conclusion (C)
  • Likely outcome depends on statutory wording and any cases establishing owner liability for verbal acts of pets (an unsettled area—hence a rich hypothetical).

Broader Significance

• Demonstrates how small factual variations create new legal issues even under unchanged rules.
• Stresses importance of not substituting moral intuition for legal analysis; law students must first articulate what the law IS before arguing what it SHOULD BE.

Practical Tips for Law Students

• When using (F)IRAC:
  • Keep trigger facts concise; weave remaining facts into Application where relevance becomes clear.
  • State each issue explicitly; one issue → one mini-IRAC.
  • Alternate arguments obligation: always recognise the opponent’s best case before rebutting.
  • Arrive at a definite conclusion unless explicitly asked for open commentary.
• When reading cases:
  • Highlight the ratio; mark obiter differently.
  • Note hierarchical level to determine binding force.
  • Track how judges apply statutory interpretation canons—these are examinable!
• Ethical / philosophical engagement is encouraged after mastering doctrinal accuracy.

Connections to Other Units & Real-World Relevance

• Statutory interpretation rules previewed here will be treated systematically in LAWS1010 (e.g. presumptions against retrospectivity, principle of legality).
• Comparative constitutional point: s.109 inconsistency principle echoes federal-state conflicts in other federations (e.g. US Supremacy Clause).
• Modern debates about offensive language laws intersect with human-rights legislation (e.g. Victoria’s Charter, ACT’s HRA) and with calls for a national bill of rights.