Statutory Interpretation and Defenses Under IPC

This assignment requires students to apply statutory interpretation principles to a hypothetical scenario involving Letitia's actions as a stage performer. Students must analyze the situation under Sections 3 and 4 of the IPC, considering whether Letitia's actions constitute an offense and if she can claim a defense under Section 5. The assignment provides references to relevant case studies and books for further research, making it an engaging and informative task.

Online Law Exam

Table of Contents
MAIN BODY...................................................................................................................................1
Question 1: Doctrine of juridical precedents..........................................................................1
Question 2: Court hierarchy...................................................................................................3
Question 3: Statutory interpretation.......................................................................................4
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................9

MAIN BODY
Question 1: Doctrine of juridical precedents
Fact related with case: the present case is presented to magistrate Rothfuss form a matter
related in Beenliegh Magistrate court. The matter is related with a brilliant law student who
previously pretested to be other law student in exams and gave examination in their name. Now,
the magistrate is presented with question that whether he can be allowed to practice law as
solicitors in Queensland. The five case which cam across Magistrate Rothfuss during his
proceedings are:
1. Auri V Tempi, 1980: in this decision was given by Privy council now called as High
court of Australia (Callander and Clark, 2017). In this case it was held that a law student
who sits in exam for another students can not be admitted as legal practitioners.
The decision holds a relevance in the present case as in law suit of Auru V Tempi
decision was passed by the privy council which is the Apex decision making body of Australia
and with doctrine of precedent the decision gives a binding effects on lower courts.
Doctrine of precedent: this can be defined as a principle which states that alike cases
should be decided in same manner. The judges take help form the doctrine from the earlier
decided cases before their law suit.
Binding effect: A court will be bound by decision of a superiors court in same hierarchy.
This can be understood as the rationale for decision of superior court is binding on lower courts
in the same manner as the superior court has a power to overrule decision off lower court in case
an appeal is made against decree of lower court.
2. Fela v Simmon, a 2008: in this decision was given by Victorian Court of Appeal as a
person who sits exams for others can be allowed to do legal practices.
Thought the case was decided by apex authority of the Australia but same is not considered in
the present case this do nor reconcile with decision anther court can no two decision can
considered for passing a ruling in law suit so this case have no relevance for to the present law
suit of law student as to decide whether he can practice law as solicitor or not.
3. Felurian v Jax, a 2010: in this case decision of high court of Australia was given by a
bench of seven judges in ration of 5:2 (Bankowski and et.al., 2016). The decision was
given buy this court that a person who sits in exam for other can be practice as solicitor
and the all 5 had different reason to reach the same conclusion.
1

For deciding the present case of the law student the decision passed in this law
suit is not taken in considerations as in upcoming cases the decision was rules so this
decision lost its validity as the overruling of the decision was done by same level of court
and within giving an explanation to the same.
4. Denna v Master Ash, a 2012: in this case it was decided by the high court of Australia
on an appeal made against order of Western Australian supreme court, in this case the
provisos decided case law of Felurian v Jax, was reviews with a unanimously by seven
judges ans it was decided that a person can not sit in exam in name of other student as
this is cheating and can not be allowed to practices as solicitor.
Expressed overruling: this stated that court can overrule the decision passed by
the court in case the previous decision was passed with deficiency while considering the
facts to the case and overrules the significant part of the legislation (Castellaneta and
et.al. , 2016). This case can be taken in the relevance as in this case previously passed
decision of same court was denied in different case law having same matter of law.
Apex court: a decision by the higher court creates a binding effect on all lower courts
following back the hierarchy provided that question in the law is the same.
5. Tinker v Elodin, a 2018: in this case was decided by a magistrates and he stated that a
student who gave exam for other student is not barred from practicing as a solicitor. He
did not take references from any other court decision.
Exception: the doctrine of precedent is not applicable to district and magistrate court
even though appeals against magistrate go to District court. This means the decision of superior
court do not apply to lower court.
Single Judge decision: A decision given by a single judge in most of the court does not
create binding effects on lower courts.
This decisions can not betaken into consideration as magistrate passed decision in this
case on his own discretion without taking any reference from previously decided case law. The
can not be questioned on the base that magistrate are given an exemption as not to consider
decision of higher courts in on same subject matter.
Resolution of the decision:
The magistrate of Beenliegh Magistrate court is faced with the following:
Auri V Tempi, 1980: Merely persuasive
2

Fela v Simmon, a 2008: Merely persuasive
Felurian v Jax, a 2010: Merely persuasive
Denna v Master Ash, a 2012: Binding Binding
Tinker v Elodin, a 2018: De facto binding
For the present case of law student relevance from the case of Denna v Master Ash, a
2012 is taken and other is not taken into consideration, though in this case magistrate is form not
taking any reference from previously decided case law. But reference is taken form the case in
which decision was passed by Apex court that is high court of Australia (The High Court and the
Doctrine of Precedent, 2018). The decision is passed as the law student can not be allowed to
practice as solicitor it is against the law to entertain a cheater. The decision of to Auri v Tempi, a
1980 contradicts with case from which reference in preset law is taken. In Fela v Simmon, a
2008, the appeal court of Victoria did not conditioner the decision of apex court for this it is
considered as implied overruling. In the present case of the law student only jurisdiction passed
in case of Denna v Master Ash is considered as this case the case with took in to account actual
interpretation of law and overrules the decision passed in the same matter by the same level of
court.
Decision of other courts are not considered in this case as those are court of lower level
then apex court and in case 3 the judgment is overvalued by the same level of court on the basis
that in previous decision the court did not interpret the law properly and the act of law student is
cheating which can not be held as legitimate. In the magistrate court the decision is passed by
single court and as per the rules of Doctrine of precedent a decision by single judge can not be
referred in future judgments. Moreover, the decision here is considered on the basis of hierarchy.
Question 2: Court hierarchy
(a)
As per section 68 of District court of Queensland Act, 1967 (Old):
in matter of civil jurisdiction:
1) the district court has jurisdiction to here and determinate:- all matters of personal nature
which involves amount, valuer or damage claim sought in form of damages to be
recovered and does not exceed the monitory limits.
3

2) The monetary limit in this section means a claim of amount $750000 or less.
In the present case it can be stated the law student he who has been allowed to practice as
solicitors had filled a claim of breach on contract against his law firm for amount $350000
(Gharfalkar and et.al.., 2015.). The law student can file this case in district court under civil
matter as this is related with civil jurisdiction and amount of claim is under the prescribed limit
of $750000.
(b)
Here situation is given that his claim for damages against his law firm was not successful, now
he sought to file an appeal against the order of district court.
Appeal: it can be defined as an application to a higher level of court for reconsidering the
decision of given be the lower court. This application is made on the ground that certain error
has been made while taking the decision by the lower court. An appeal can exist either “as of
right” or “with leave”.
Appeal against district court to can be made to supreme court. On the following grounds:
1. On the question of law which is a right given to a convicted person.
2. By the convicted person, by leaver of the court of appeals or by a certificate from a trail
judge.
3. Against the sentence, by attorney general as of right, or by convicted person.
4. By attorney general on question of law.
Leave to appeal: a grant to leave to appeal means a person has been permitted to appeal
against an order. In a leave you challenge the decision. In this new evidences can be submitted
by the appellant to claim his point in the cases (Gharfalkar and et.al.., 2015.). In appeal generally
no new evidences are accepted is considered as not a new trial for the case.
This can be stated in this case that, the law student whose claim against her law firm has
been rejected by the district court can file an appeal in supreme court to challenged the decision.
A leave to appeal is required in this case if the solicitor wants to file new evidences for the given
case and want a new trail for te case.
For the given instance it can be concluded that a leave to appeal can be permitted in this case as
he can file new evidences to challenge the decision passed by the district court.
Question 3: Statutory interpretation
This law is passed in the Queensland parliament:
4

Commencement of Crowd Control Act, 2018 (Old)
Intrinsic material:this means the stuff that is considers as the part if the Act.
Part 1
Section 1 :Short title : Crowd Control Act, 2018 (Old)
Section 2:
The main aim of this act is to provide guideline to citizen over how to behave in crowed as a
member of it in a sporting event, so all spectators may peacefully enjoy themselves.
Section 3: interpretation:
Object: food container, drink container, food beverages or rubbish.
Sporting event: this can be termed as any public event that may be attained by spectators.
Throw: this means to toss, fling, pitch or any other bodily action that caused an object to move
in the air.
Part 2
Crowed behaviour affecting other spectators
Section 4:
(1) a spectator who throws any kind of object at a sporting event is considered to commit an
offence.
Penalty: 10 penalty units.
(2) if a person commits two offences in same sporting events under this section he/she liable
for a 30 penalty unit sanction.
Section 5:
This section provides a complete defence against offence committed under section 4 if
the object thrown by accident, unless the person charged under section 4 increased the
likelihood (Probability) of occurrence of that accident.
Geographical application:
The crowd control Act is Queensland act and the same will apply throughout Queensland and
Gabba.
Extrinsic material: The material which is not part of the act such as explanatory notes,
memorandums, speeches made in parliament etc.
5

Speech by Minister where he highlighted merits of the Act:
In the speech, The Minister stated that he will not entertain anything that will tarnish the
image of Queensland (Beim, 2017). Further he stated that, if a person is sitting in crowed at a
cricket or football event and throws anything anywhere, the police will catch them a criminal
prosecution will be faced by that person. A spectator has a right to enjoy an event without being
showered by drink of a drunken person.
Issues in the present case:
Issue 1: To determine whether the spilling of wine on teenager is considered as an offence
under section 4 of this act?
The statutory interpretation of the scenario can is as follows:
Intrinsic materials
Sailor Twift concert: a per section 2 a public event which can be attained by a viewer is
considered and sporting event both the conditioned are fulfilled for concert so it was sporting
event.
Spilling: as per dictionary this means to allow to flow a liquid over the edge of its container. As
per the act, to fling, toss or a bodily gesture that cause an object to move in air is termed as
throw and here the bodily action of Letitia was the reason for spilling of the wine from her
glass.
Wine: as per the act any beverage is termed as object and wine is one of them.
So it can be stated the wine is object, concert is sporting event and spilling is throw as per
section 2 of this act.
Accident: this is an unintentional act by a spectator sitting in the crowd at a sporting event.
Teenager: another spectator in the crowd of concert.
Extrinsic materials
Speech and its authenticity:
It can be assumed that Minister gave his speech publicly, in speech it was stated by
Minister that a person showered by drink of a drunken person, will be consider as an offence
and will charge for criminal prosecution (Halperin, 2017). But as per definition given in statutory
interpretation act it can conclude that a speech do not form a part of act and it is an Extrinsic
material.
6

So spilling of wine which was to be considered as breach of Section 4 shall be determined as
per statutory interpretation of this act. As per section 4 of the act a spectator who throws an
object a sporting event commits an offence.
For given case Letitia spilled wine on a teenager in the concert which fall in the ambit of the
definition of section 4, but nothing in this section is mentioned about the intention of the
spectator.
Breach to section 4
In the present case, Letitia can be charged under this act as his act fulfils all the
conditions defined in section 4 although the speech given by Minister is not considered in
interpretation of the act of Letitia and definition (Staszewski, 2015). As per this section the
spilling of wine over a teenager in a public concert fulfil all the requirement of definition given
in section 4. so this will be considered as breach of section 4 by Letitia.
Defence under section 5:
It is defined in section 5 that a defence can be claimed if the object was thrown
accidentally, same will not be considered as offence unless the person charged under section 4
is increased the probability of occurrence of the accident. Here Letitia can state that she
accidentally spilled the wine on another spectator in a act of shifting from her seat.
Assumption on case proceedings:
In her defence Letitia can stated that it was an accident but the same can be dined in the
fact that this was likely to occur because she was drinking wine for the wine for the time she
entered the stadium that is 5 pm till the time concert started that is 10 pm. So this was her only
who initiated the act of spilling the wine, so no-defence can be given to her under section 5.
Advice: For act of spilling wine on other spectator by Letitia, she can might be charged
under section 4 of the action and have to pay 10 penalty units as her drinking wine for 5 hours
made her defence very week and can court may consider the same as she increased the likelihood
of that accident, in case she was not drunk that night this might not happened.
Issue 2: To determine the tossing the heel in the air which hit one of the crew member on
the stage is an offence under section 4 of this act?
Statutory interpretation:
Intrinsic materials
Tossing: this is clearly denied in the section 3 of the act that as throw of an object:
7

Heel: the object in the defined under section 3 is defined as food container, drink container,
food beverages or rubbish but nothing is mentioned about the heel of a sandal.
Here, it is assumed that court can consider heel in rubbish as nothing specific is mentioned about
what falls under rubbish and what not.
Intention: the intention of Letitia was clearly not to hurt anybody from the crowd or crew
member of stage. She just tossed back the hell to stage which was thrown by Sailor towards
crowd.
Breach of section 4: this can be stated that court can consider the acts of tossing the heel to
stage as an offence under section 4 of the act and while defining the heel under rubbish and
seeing the delicacy of the situation as a person got hurt by this act of Letitia.
Defence under section 5
Letitia can defend herself stating that the tossing of heel was mere an act with no
intention of harming anyone and none of her action would have increased the probability of
commitment of that toss, as its was a spontaneous response to the action of Sailor.
Advise: here, Letitia has a strong base for presenting her defence (Blaker, 2017). She
can contend that heel does not fall under the ambit of object as per indefinite given in section 3.
another averments that can be made by her under section 5, that it was an accident, though she
threw back the heel she had no intention of hurting anyone, it was a mere coincidence.
Conclusion:
Letitia is advised that she can claim a defence under section 5 against her first offence as
for that she have a lesser chances to get immunity from penalty. But for second issue she has a
strong defence under section 3 and under 5 and she can demand immunity from penalty charged
under section 4(2).
8

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Bankowski, Z and et.al., 2016. Precedent in the United Kingdom. In Interpreting
Precedents. (pp. 315-354). Routledge.
Beim, D., 2017. Learning in the judicial hierarchy. The Journal of Politics, 79(2), pp.591-604.
Blaker, J., 2017. Is Intentionalist Theory Indispensable to Statutory Interpretation. Monash UL
Rev.,43. p.238.
Callander, S. and Clark, T. S., 2017. Precedent and doctrine in a complicated world. American
Political Science Review. 111(1). pp.184-203.
Castellaneta, F and et.al. , 2016. The effect of trade secret legal protection on venture capital
investments: Evidence from the inevitable disclosure doctrine. Journal of Business
Venturing. 31(5). pp.524-541.
Gharfalkar, M and et.al.., 2015. Analysis of waste hierarchy in the European waste directive
2008/98/EC. Waste management. 39. pp.305-313.
Halperin, C .J., 2017. Hierarchy of Hierarchies: Muscovite Society during the Reign of Ivan
IV. Russian History. 44(4). pp.570-584.
Staszewski, G., 2015. The Dumbing Down of Statutory Interpretation. BUL Rev., 95, p.209.
Online
The High Court and the Doctrine of Precedent. 2018. Available though
:<https://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/opinionsonhigh/2013/07/18/harding-precedent/>.
9