LAW1100 Lecture 2 notes 01.docx
- 文档编号:29053472
- 上传时间:2023-07-20
- 格式:DOCX
- 页数:15
- 大小:24.44KB
LAW1100 Lecture 2 notes 01.docx
《LAW1100 Lecture 2 notes 01.docx》由会员分享,可在线阅读,更多相关《LAW1100 Lecture 2 notes 01.docx(15页珍藏版)》请在冰豆网上搜索。
LAW1100Lecture2notes01
EdithCowanUniversity
2011
LEGALFRAMEWORKI
LECTURENOTES
Notetoreader:
theselecturenotesarecompiledforthepurposesoftheunitLAW1100LegalFrameworkIandareselectiveinnatureandscope.Thenotesareforacademicpurposesonly.
Lecture2
AnIntroductiontoLaw:
SourcesofLaw,andInterpretationofStatutes
INTRODUCTION
Inthefirstlecture,wenotedthatthelawcanbeclassified,amongstotherways,accordingtosourceundertwoheadings-StatuteLawandCaseLaw.StatuteLawisthelawenactedbyParliament,andcoversnotonlyActsofParliamentbutalsodelegatedlegislationintheformofrulesandregulationsmadebysubordinatebodies.CaseLawisalsoknownasjudgemadelawandrepresentstheprinciplesoflawwhichhaveevolvedovertimefromcourtdecisions.Thislecturewillconsiderthetwosourcesoflawingreaterdetail,andthenexaminehowtheselawsdevelopandareinterpretedbytheCourts.
Onsuccessfulcompletionofthislecture,youshould(withinthescopeofthecourse)beableto:
∙discussthedifferencesbetweenstatutelawandcaselaw
∙haveabasicunderstandingofcasecitation
∙describethedoctrineofprecedentorstaredecisisandtheimportanceofthehierarchyofthecourtsinitsoperation
∙describethelegalconceptsofratiodecidendiandobiterdictum
∙describe‘distinguishing’asameansofavoidingprecedent
∙identifythestatutoryaidstointerpretationofstatutes
∙identifyanddescribethecommonlawrulesforstatutoryinterpretation,andtherulesconcerningwords
THESOURCESOFLAW
StatuteLaw
ThereareanumberofkeydifferencesbetweenStatuteLawandCaseLaw:
1.StatuteLawcanbecreatedimmediatelywhereascaselawisdependentonthepublicengaginginlitigation.
2.AStatutegenerallyhasimmediateuniversalapplicationwhereasaCourtdecisiononlyinitiallyappliestothepartiesandwillbemuchsloweringainingwideracceptance.
3.WhileaStatutemaybegivenretrospectiveeffect,caselawnevercan.
4.Intheeventofaconflictbetweenthetwo,StatuteLawprevails.
CaseLaw
ThedevelopmentofCaseLawdependsontheformalreportingofcasesandthenotionofprecedent.Accordingly,thefollowingdiscussionconsidersthekeythemesofthenamingofcases,theDoctrineofPrecedent,theconceptsofratiodecidendiandobiterdictum,andthenotionofdistinguishing.
CitationofCases
Awaytodeterminethetypeof'law'intermsofcriminalandcivilcasesistolookatthepartiesinvolved.Ascivilcasesinvolveindividuals,thenamingconventionforcasesbeingheardthefirsttimeistousethePlaintiff’snamefollowedbya‘v.’andthentheDefendant’sname.Similarly,inappealcases,thenameofthepartymakingtheappeal(theappellant)isplacedbeforethe‘v.’andthepartyresponding(therespondent)isplacedafterthe‘v’.Thus,inthecelebratedcaseofDonoghuev.Stevenson,Donoghuewastheplaintiff(andlaterwasalsotheappellantwhenthecasewenttoappeal)andStevensonwasthedefendant(andlatertherespondent).The‘v.’betweenthenamesstandsforversusandmeansagainst,butincivilcasesispronounced‘and’.Therefore,wespeakofthecaseDonoghueandStevenson.
Incriminalcases,thepartiesareusuallytheCrownandthedefendant.ThenamingconventionforcasesbeingheardthefirsttimeistousetheCrownasprosecutorfirstfollowedbythenameofthedefendant.Thus,inthecaseR.v.Smith,RisanabbreviationforRex(King)orRegina(Queen).Thesmallvispronouncedas‘against’incriminalcases.Therefore,wespeakofthecaseastheQueen(orKing,dependingonthereigningmonarchatthetimeofthecase)againstSmithorsimply‘theCrownagainstSmith’.Interestingly,thepronunciationof‘v.’inmanyAmericanjurisdictionsis‘versus’(or‘vee’),regardlessofwhetherthecaseiscivilorcriminal.
Youwillnoticethatthecasenameisalsogivenfurtheridentifyingfeatures,suchastheyearinwhichthecaseisheard,thevolumeofthecasereport,thenameofthecasereportingorganisationandthepagenumberofthefirstpageofthereport.Considerforexample,Donoghuev.Stevenson[1932]AC562.Theexactdetailoftheseadditionalidentifyingfeaturesisnotexaminableinthisunit.
DoctrineofPrecedent
TheDoctrineofPrecedent(Latin-staredecisis,‘stare’pronouncedas‘starry’)holdsthat‘likecasesshouldbedecidedinalikemanner”.Thatis,casesmustbedecidedthesamewaywhentheirmaterialfactsaresimilar.TheDoctrineisgiveneffectthroughthehierarchyofthecourts.Inotherwords,everyCourtisboundbythedecisionsoftheCourtsaboveitinthesamelegalsystem.Forexample,theWADistrictCourtisboundbyadecisionoftheWASupremeCourtbutisnotboundbyadecisionofaSupremeCourtinadifferentstate.Generally,individualjudgesatthesamelevelarenotboundbyeachother'sdecisions,andusuallyCourtsarenotboundbytheirownpastdecisions(althoughjudgeswillgenerallyfollowaconservativepathandfollowpastdecisionsatthesamelevel).
TheDoctrineofPrecedentwasfacilitatedbythedevelopmentofaccuratelawreporting,whichdatesbacktothethirteenthcenturyinEngland.Theearlyreportswerenotalwaysregardedasreliable,anditwasnotuntiltheeighteenthcenturythatjudgesandlawyershadauthoritativeaccountsofcasesuponwhichtoreferencetheirdecisionsandarguments.In1865,theEnglishCouncilofLawReportingwasestablishedandhadtheresponsibilityforissuingofficiallawreports,suchasfromtheAppealCases(AC),theKing’s(orQueen’s)Bench(KBorQB)andChancery(Ch).Thesereports,alongwiththeAllEnglandReports,areavailableinthereferencesectionoftheEdithCowanUniversityLawLibrary,asaretheofficiallawreportsinAustralia,suchastheCommonwealthLawReports(CLR),NSWLawReports(NSWLR)andtheWesternAustralianLawReports(WAR).Throughtheprocessofrecordingjudgements,thenotionthatajudgewasinfluencedbypreviousdecisionschangedtothemorerigidcriterionthatajudgebecameboundbypreviousdecisionsevenifthejudgedidnotagree.
TheDoctrineofPrecedenthasanumberofadvantagesanddisadvantages.Ontheplusside,thedoctrinepromotesconsistency,continuity,confidenceandcertaintyintheLaw.Itisclearlyimportantforpartiestoanactiontoknowthatdecisionsarenotarrivedatbywhimorguess-work.Onthedownside,thedoctrinecanresultintheLawbeingrigidandslowtochange,wherelowerCourtsareboundbyoutdateddecisionsofhighercourts(inthesamelegalsystem).Indeed,attimes,Parliamentshavetostepinandovercometherigiditythroughlegislation.
Ratiodecidendi
Theratiodecidendi(thereasonfordeciding)isthepartofaCourt'sdecisionthatisbinding(atleastuponlowercourtsinthesamecourtsystem).Itiscomprisedoftheprincipleoflawandessentialfactsuponwhichthedecisionisbased.Everycourtjudgementwillhavearatio,thoughitissometimesdifficulttoidentify,especiallyinappealdecisionsinvolvinganumberofseparatejudgements.
Animportantcaseinthelawofnegligence,Donoghuev.Stevenson[1932]AC562,providesanexampleofwhataratiodecidendilookslike.Asaratioisreflectedbythematerialfactsofthecaseandthelegalprincipleonwhichthedecisionrests,wemustlookforboth.Inthiscase,theHouseofLordsheldthatadutyofcarewasowedbyamanufacturerofgingerbeertoaconsumerwhosufferedinjuryandshockbydrinkingfromabottleoftheproductwhich,duetothenegligenceofthemanufacturer,alsocontainedadecomposedsnail.Theratioofthecaseprovidedthefoundationsforthetransformationofthelawofnegligencefarbeyondthenarrowconfinesofbottledsoftdrinkanddeceasedgastropods.LordAtkindiscussedthematerialfactsinbroadertermswhenconsideringtheissueofdutyofcare(Latimer,1998,p.37):
...amanufacturerofproducts,whichhesellsinsuchaformastoshowthatheintendsthemtoreachtheultimateconsumerintheforminwhichtheylefthimwithnoreasonablepossibilityofintermediateexamination,andwiththeknowledgethattheabsenceofreasonablecareinthepreparationorputtingupoftheproductswillresultinaninjurytotheconsumer’slifeorproperty,owesadutytotheconsumertotakethatreasonablecare.
Thegeneralprincipleoflawthatprovidedthebasisforliabilityinnegligence,theneighbourprinciple,wasalsostatedbyLordAtkininhisjudgement(Latimer,1998,pp.36-37):
Therulethatyouaretoloveyourneighbourbecomesinlaw,youmustnotinjureyourneighbour;andthelawyer’squestion,‘whoismyneighbour?
’receivesarestrictedreply.Youmusttakereasonablecaretoavoidactsoromissionswhichyoucanreasonablyforeseewouldbelikelytoinjureyourneighbour.Whotheninlawismyneighbour?
Theanswerseemstobe-personswhoaresocloselyanddirectlyaffectedbymyactthatIoughtreasonablytohavethemincontemplationasbeingsoaffectedwhenIamdirectingmymindtotheactsoromissionswhicharecalledintoquestion.
Obiterdictum
Anobiterdictum(asayingbytheway)isastatementoflegalprinciplebyajudgewhichisnotbindingonanycourt.ItisastatementoropinionastowhattheLawisonaparticularmatterwhichisnotessentialtothedecisionreached.Whilstanobiterisnotbinding,itcanbeofpersuasivevalueinlatercourtdecisions,dependingonanumberoffactorsincludingtheimportanceandprestigeoftheCourtstatingit.Indeed,sometimesaCourtinasubsequentcasemightapplyobiterdictumaspartofitsratiodecidendiandmakenewlaw.HedleyByrneandCov.Heller&Partners[1964]AC465providesan
- 配套讲稿:
如PPT文件的首页显示word图标,表示该PPT已包含配套word讲稿。双击word图标可打开word文档。
- 特殊限制:
部分文档作品中含有的国旗、国徽等图片,仅作为作品整体效果示例展示,禁止商用。设计者仅对作品中独创性部分享有著作权。
- 关 键 词:
- LAW1100 Lecture notes 01