Reference no: EM132151898 , Length: word count:500

LEGAL PROCESS SHORT ANSWER QUESTIONS - ANSWER EACH QUESTION

Question 1 - Create ONE (and only one) syllogism that would accurately distil the essence of a supportable argument in your major assignment.

Question 2 - The fundamental facts, as you can see, are not that far removed from the idea in the case brief. You must however put the case brief out of your mind. Throughout the unit, as explained many times, one of the learning outcomes is to force ideas into a syllogism, but here the principles, contrary to the case brief, are the principles not in the cases but are the principles of statutory interpretation.

John Good is a popular politician who recently has been released from jail. His various political messages are radical and have attracted much controversy. He is a charismatic and persuasive speaker. Many attempts have been made to muzzle him. He has a particular message for the saving of the environment and saving the earth and his political rallies are often held in remote places outside the metropolis, often attended by thousands of concerned citizens.

His activities have attracted much concern from particular interest groups, who are concerned that if he is voted into office, he would implement environmental measures, such as the reduction of coal mining and the restriction of logging, which would impact on jobs. These interest groups therefore resolved to interrupt his rallies. This was not difficult; given that John Good held his rallies in remote places, all they had to do was to somehow block off access. This they did by various ways, including felling a whole tree to create a barrier across the road (a favourite method of a particular pro-logging group); lining up on a road leading to his rallies to create an impenetrable barricade; parking their cars in the middle of the road so it was impenetrable to traffic. These proved generally effective.

Parliament was concerned to ensure that people did not interrupt his rallies in whatever form. In Parliament's haste, it passed an act that was somewhat clumsily worded - but do not be tempted to comment generally on the clumsy wording of the act, as its clumsiness is obvious, simply apply principles of statutory interpretation as covered in the unit - and thereby legitimately engage its learning outcomes! Problems of enforcement are not in issue.

This is the relevant part of the act that was passed:

An act for the prevention of hindrance of political rallies.

In the interpretation of this Act, to 'hinder' means to obstruct by creating a roadblock, hurdle, rampart, or any other barricade.

S20 - any person who hinders another person from attending a political rally commits an offence.

Let's call this 'the Act'.

News has got out that John is about to hold a massive political rally with a message specifically directed at the restriction of logging. It is expected that thousands will attend.

Victor is a director of a logging company and is concerned that if John is elected to parliament, he will implement measures that will restrict logging and therefore affect his livelihood and of his employees. He has resolved to do whatever he can to interfere (using a specially selected neutral term rather than any of the expressions in the Act) with the rally

Victor has found the contact number and emails of John Good and numerous of his supporters. These appear on petitions and such like. He contacts hundreds of them - including John himself - individually and collectively, by email and phone and whatever other means of communication he can think of, and sends the following messages or a combination of them, depending on who he was speaking to: I know where you live, if you attend that guy Good's rally, you're dead.. I can put a contract on your life for attending..if you value your life, don't attend the rally.. expect a bomb under your car if you attend, I know the number of your car..

The fact that John Good is about to hold a political 'rally' and, also, Victor's intention somehow to interfere (to use the same neutral expression) with it, are not in issue.

Victor's actions have the desired effect. Many who would otherwise have attended, as a result, refrained from attending the rally for fear of the consequences of whatever Victor had threatened them.

Discuss Victor's criminal liability under the Act purely as a question of statutory/legislative interpretation, and applying the methodology of conventional problem solving as has been studied throughout the module. You must include in your answer at least a consideration of the literal approach, the purposive (common law and statutory) approaches; and the maxim ejusdem generis - but please also confine your answer to such. Do NOT consider any other approaches. In particular do not discuss the use of extrinsic material such as second reading speeches parliamentary debates, executive documents, commission and committee reports and such like. It is to be assumed (to the extent you consider it relevant) that establishing the purpose of the enactment, and the mischief it is intended to redress, will not cause practical difficulties and that these can broadly be inferred from the facts stated above.