ELS – consolidation SBAQs
https://learninglink.oup.com/access/slorach5e-student-
resources#tag_chapter-02
Question 1
The Domestic Pets Act 2020 (fictitious) states in its long title that
it is 'An Act to regulate the keeping and use of domestic pets' and
for purposes connected therewith'. Part of its purpose is to put
into law a vets' code of practice ('the code') in relation to welfare.
Which of the following statements about the Act is correct?
A. If the Act is silent on its extent, it applies just to England and Wales.
B. The code would be contained in various sections of the Act.
C. It would not be possible for the Act to come into force on the date of
Royal Assent, as that would give pet owners no notice of changes to
the law.
D. The code would in all likelihood appear as a schedule to the Act.
E. The code would in all likelihood appear as a subsequent statutory
instrument.
Feedback
Option D is correct - the code would appear as a schedule to the Act. This
is because it is conventional for additional documents and extra material,
which are too bulky to be contained within the sections of an Act, to
appear as schedules instead.
Option A is wrong because where an Act is silent as to its extent it applies
to the whole of the UK.
Option B is wrong because as explained above, the code would go into a
schedule.
Option C is wrong because any Act can stipulate that it comes into force
on the date of Royal Assent (in this instance it is possible that pet owners
would be alerted to any changes to the law through the media and other
publicity).
Option E is wrong because a statutory instrument would only be required
where there is significant extra detail required to supplement the original
Act.
Question 2
A solicitor is advising a client who owns mobile caravans on the
interpretation of a particular section of the Motor Homes Act
(fictional) (‘the Act’), which governs substandard facilities in
certain moveable holiday accommodation. The solicitor
,researches the passage of the Act through Parliament. She
discovers a speech from a backbench MP saying the Act is needed
to regulate and control low quality hygiene facilities in vehicles
used as motor homes, travelling homes and mobile caravans.
Further research by the solicitor confirms this is indeed the aim of
the Act, which mentions mobile caravans.
Which of the following rules is most likely to apply to the
interpretation of the Act?
The rule in Pepper v Hart, because of the speech by the MP.
The mischief rule, because there is an indication of the wrong the
Act is intended to correct.
The golden rule, because there is a need to choose between
‘substandard’ and ‘low quality’, i.e. two possible interpretations of
the Act.
The literal rule, because the word ‘substandard’ needs no expansion
or clarification
The rule in noscitur a sociis, because the MP’s speech mentions a
list of vehicles and the client needs to know if mobile caravans are
included.
Feedback
Option B is correct. The mischief rule means someone interpreting an Act
of Parliament can, or should, assess the reason for the Act’s provisions, to
assess the problem that the Act is designed to correct. The mischief rule
would be relevant as there is mention of the Act’s aims.
Option A is wrong because the rule in Pepper v Hart applies to statements
made by ministers responsible for guiding legislation through Parliament,
not statements by backbench MPs.
Option C is wrong because there is no suggestion a choice needs to be
made between two alternative interpretations of the Act or a section of it.
Option D is wrong because the word ‘substandard’ is not clear and thus is
unlikely to be subject to the literal rule.
Option E is wrong because the noscitur rule applies to words that are not
specifically stated, and here ‘mobile caravans’ are mentioned by the Act.
Question 3
A judge is hearing a case in which he has to resolve a difficulty in
the drafting of section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996. [Note that
you do not need sight of the section to answer this question.]
Which ONE of the following judicial statements would be an
example of the judge using the golden rule?
“Reading the section literally, no appeal lies to the Court of Appeal”.
, “The starting point to consider is why the Arbitration Act 1996 was
passed as that will help us to determine the meaning of section 9”.
“I am left in no doubt that, for once, the draftsman slipped up. Given
the intended object of the section is plain, it should be read in a
manner which gives effect to parliamentary intention.”
“The starting point to consider is, what was the purpose of the Act?”
Feedback
The answer is Option C as this statement demonstrates the use of the
golden rule to avoid an absurd result.
Options A, B and D are wrong as they are not applications of the golden
rule.
Option A is a clear example of use of the literal rule.
Option B appears to be the application of the mischief rule as it is looking
back at the reason why the Act was passed.
Option D looks at the purpose of the Act, which is the purposive approach.
The golden rule does not look at the purpose of the statute.
Question 4
If a term has been defined in an earlier statute and a judge is
interpreting a later statute on a similar area of law, which ONE of
the following statements is CORRECT?
The judge must apply that earlier definition even if there is no
ambiguity in the later statute.
The judge must apply that earlier definition if there is ambiguity in
the later statute.
The judge may apply that earlier definition if there is ambiguity in
the later statute.
The judge must apply that earlier definition irrespective of whether
there is any ambiguity in the later statute.
Feedback
The correct answer is Option c. Interpretation is discretionary so Option B
is wrong. If there is no ambiguity then the judge cannot interpret the
statute in any other way than how it is written so Option A is wrong, as is
Option D – the judge would only consider using an earlier definition if
there was ambiguity; if there is no ambiguity, there is no need for
interpretation.
Question 5
Imagine a case where the Court of Appeal had to consider the
meaning of section 1(1) of the Street Offences Act 1959 which
, states that it is an offence under that Act for a prostitute to
solicit in a ‘street or public place’. The women concerned were
not actually in the street, but were inside their homes, tapping on
their windows and calling to attract the attention of men.
Which ONE statement do you consider is CORRECT?
If the court applied the literal rule, it was bound to find that the
women were guilty of the offence.
The court would have to apply the purposive rule and, if the purpose
of the 1959 Act was to keep prostitutes off the streets, the women
could not be guilty of an offence.
If the court decided that the 1959 Act was passed in order to clean
up the streets and to enable people to walk along the streets
without being molested or solicited by prostitutes, the women would
be found guilty of the offence.
The court would have to refer it to the European Court of Justice to
decide.
Feedback
That's right - the correct answer is Option C.
Option A is wrong because the literal rule would have resulted in the
women being acquitted as, using the plain meaning of the 1959 Act, being
in a ‘street or public place’ would not include being inside a house.
Option B is wrong because the UK courts were not using the purposive
approach until after the UK joined the European Community and, in any
event, if the purposive approach were to be used it would be likely to have
the same result as using the mischief rule - the women would be likely to
be found guilty even though they were soliciting from inside a house.
Option D is wrong as the ECJ had no jurisdiction in UK cases at that time
and, in any event, the 1959 Act was clearly not EU related legislation.
ELS – workshop 1
Engage Task 1 – SBAQs
Question one
A man is being tried in the magistrates for being drunk in charge
of a bicycle. The prosecution say a bicycle is a carriage. He is
pleading not guilty on the basis the bike is not a carriage.
The court has referred to a dictionary, which states a ‘carriage’ is
an obsolete and archaic term, except in the case of wheeled
vehicles or railway carriages.
https://learninglink.oup.com/access/slorach5e-student-
resources#tag_chapter-02
Question 1
The Domestic Pets Act 2020 (fictitious) states in its long title that
it is 'An Act to regulate the keeping and use of domestic pets' and
for purposes connected therewith'. Part of its purpose is to put
into law a vets' code of practice ('the code') in relation to welfare.
Which of the following statements about the Act is correct?
A. If the Act is silent on its extent, it applies just to England and Wales.
B. The code would be contained in various sections of the Act.
C. It would not be possible for the Act to come into force on the date of
Royal Assent, as that would give pet owners no notice of changes to
the law.
D. The code would in all likelihood appear as a schedule to the Act.
E. The code would in all likelihood appear as a subsequent statutory
instrument.
Feedback
Option D is correct - the code would appear as a schedule to the Act. This
is because it is conventional for additional documents and extra material,
which are too bulky to be contained within the sections of an Act, to
appear as schedules instead.
Option A is wrong because where an Act is silent as to its extent it applies
to the whole of the UK.
Option B is wrong because as explained above, the code would go into a
schedule.
Option C is wrong because any Act can stipulate that it comes into force
on the date of Royal Assent (in this instance it is possible that pet owners
would be alerted to any changes to the law through the media and other
publicity).
Option E is wrong because a statutory instrument would only be required
where there is significant extra detail required to supplement the original
Act.
Question 2
A solicitor is advising a client who owns mobile caravans on the
interpretation of a particular section of the Motor Homes Act
(fictional) (‘the Act’), which governs substandard facilities in
certain moveable holiday accommodation. The solicitor
,researches the passage of the Act through Parliament. She
discovers a speech from a backbench MP saying the Act is needed
to regulate and control low quality hygiene facilities in vehicles
used as motor homes, travelling homes and mobile caravans.
Further research by the solicitor confirms this is indeed the aim of
the Act, which mentions mobile caravans.
Which of the following rules is most likely to apply to the
interpretation of the Act?
The rule in Pepper v Hart, because of the speech by the MP.
The mischief rule, because there is an indication of the wrong the
Act is intended to correct.
The golden rule, because there is a need to choose between
‘substandard’ and ‘low quality’, i.e. two possible interpretations of
the Act.
The literal rule, because the word ‘substandard’ needs no expansion
or clarification
The rule in noscitur a sociis, because the MP’s speech mentions a
list of vehicles and the client needs to know if mobile caravans are
included.
Feedback
Option B is correct. The mischief rule means someone interpreting an Act
of Parliament can, or should, assess the reason for the Act’s provisions, to
assess the problem that the Act is designed to correct. The mischief rule
would be relevant as there is mention of the Act’s aims.
Option A is wrong because the rule in Pepper v Hart applies to statements
made by ministers responsible for guiding legislation through Parliament,
not statements by backbench MPs.
Option C is wrong because there is no suggestion a choice needs to be
made between two alternative interpretations of the Act or a section of it.
Option D is wrong because the word ‘substandard’ is not clear and thus is
unlikely to be subject to the literal rule.
Option E is wrong because the noscitur rule applies to words that are not
specifically stated, and here ‘mobile caravans’ are mentioned by the Act.
Question 3
A judge is hearing a case in which he has to resolve a difficulty in
the drafting of section 9 of the Arbitration Act 1996. [Note that
you do not need sight of the section to answer this question.]
Which ONE of the following judicial statements would be an
example of the judge using the golden rule?
“Reading the section literally, no appeal lies to the Court of Appeal”.
, “The starting point to consider is why the Arbitration Act 1996 was
passed as that will help us to determine the meaning of section 9”.
“I am left in no doubt that, for once, the draftsman slipped up. Given
the intended object of the section is plain, it should be read in a
manner which gives effect to parliamentary intention.”
“The starting point to consider is, what was the purpose of the Act?”
Feedback
The answer is Option C as this statement demonstrates the use of the
golden rule to avoid an absurd result.
Options A, B and D are wrong as they are not applications of the golden
rule.
Option A is a clear example of use of the literal rule.
Option B appears to be the application of the mischief rule as it is looking
back at the reason why the Act was passed.
Option D looks at the purpose of the Act, which is the purposive approach.
The golden rule does not look at the purpose of the statute.
Question 4
If a term has been defined in an earlier statute and a judge is
interpreting a later statute on a similar area of law, which ONE of
the following statements is CORRECT?
The judge must apply that earlier definition even if there is no
ambiguity in the later statute.
The judge must apply that earlier definition if there is ambiguity in
the later statute.
The judge may apply that earlier definition if there is ambiguity in
the later statute.
The judge must apply that earlier definition irrespective of whether
there is any ambiguity in the later statute.
Feedback
The correct answer is Option c. Interpretation is discretionary so Option B
is wrong. If there is no ambiguity then the judge cannot interpret the
statute in any other way than how it is written so Option A is wrong, as is
Option D – the judge would only consider using an earlier definition if
there was ambiguity; if there is no ambiguity, there is no need for
interpretation.
Question 5
Imagine a case where the Court of Appeal had to consider the
meaning of section 1(1) of the Street Offences Act 1959 which
, states that it is an offence under that Act for a prostitute to
solicit in a ‘street or public place’. The women concerned were
not actually in the street, but were inside their homes, tapping on
their windows and calling to attract the attention of men.
Which ONE statement do you consider is CORRECT?
If the court applied the literal rule, it was bound to find that the
women were guilty of the offence.
The court would have to apply the purposive rule and, if the purpose
of the 1959 Act was to keep prostitutes off the streets, the women
could not be guilty of an offence.
If the court decided that the 1959 Act was passed in order to clean
up the streets and to enable people to walk along the streets
without being molested or solicited by prostitutes, the women would
be found guilty of the offence.
The court would have to refer it to the European Court of Justice to
decide.
Feedback
That's right - the correct answer is Option C.
Option A is wrong because the literal rule would have resulted in the
women being acquitted as, using the plain meaning of the 1959 Act, being
in a ‘street or public place’ would not include being inside a house.
Option B is wrong because the UK courts were not using the purposive
approach until after the UK joined the European Community and, in any
event, if the purposive approach were to be used it would be likely to have
the same result as using the mischief rule - the women would be likely to
be found guilty even though they were soliciting from inside a house.
Option D is wrong as the ECJ had no jurisdiction in UK cases at that time
and, in any event, the 1959 Act was clearly not EU related legislation.
ELS – workshop 1
Engage Task 1 – SBAQs
Question one
A man is being tried in the magistrates for being drunk in charge
of a bicycle. The prosecution say a bicycle is a carriage. He is
pleading not guilty on the basis the bike is not a carriage.
The court has referred to a dictionary, which states a ‘carriage’ is
an obsolete and archaic term, except in the case of wheeled
vehicles or railway carriages.
