Tutorial 2 Legal Skills

1) Explain the steps in conducting legal analysis

Analyse the facts, Frame research questions, conduct their own legal research,
State the relevant law, apply that law accurately to the facts, and reach a
conclusion that is justified by the analysis.

2) Explain Bullseye and Mirat

Bullseye
BLUE RING means that the are often true; they state a fact or detail mentioned
in the text. However, the information is not an appropriate answer to the
particular question asked.

RED RING means the answer is mostly correct but only the little words within
these answers disqualify them. Words like and, or, always, or most of the time
create differences that significantly alter the meaning. These answers require
careful attention since they are true, but they might not be complete. Students
need to consider whether there is another answer that is more correct.

YELLOW RING: The answers address the particular question asked and provide
the most complete and most accurate information.

Mirat
Material facts: Identify what the material facts which is sufficient to mentally
identify what facts may give rise to a legal
Issues of law and policy: Identify the relevant legal issue
Rules and resources: A brief summary of the relevant legal test should be
sufficient which stated the legal rules that will be in the consideration of both
statute and common law.
Arguments or application: Apply the legal rules to the facts in the problem. This
involves working through the ‘test’ identified in the rules section above.
Tentative conclusion: It is the conclusion to the question posed in the issue
section above.

3) Explain the interpretation tools

Literal rule
 Uses the plain ordinary meaning of words, since these were the words
chosen by the draftsman.
 The focus is on the words in order to avoid the court form making the
law instead of interpreting it.
 In Fisher v Bell, the defendant a shopkeeper, displayed in his window a
flick knife with a price ticket, and was prosecuted for 'offering for sale'
an offensive weapon contrary to the Restriction of Offensive Weapons
Act 1959. it was held that the phrase offer for sale was to be taken
literally in accordance with the meaning of contract law, and therefore
it was no more than an invitation to treat.
Golden rule,
 The court could construe a statute by departing from the literal
meaning of the words if to do so it would have resulted in absurdity.
 Absurdity here refers to more than just irreconcilability.
 The court need to take the whole of the statute together, placing the
word or section in its context and giving the words their ordinary
meaning unless it produces absurdity.
 It is considering as a bridge between literal and purposive rule.
 In the case of Re Sigsworth, where a son murdered his mother, at the
time of death, the mother had not made a will. Under the statute
setting the law on intestacy he was to inherit her entire estate. The
court applied the golden rule holding that an application of the literal
rule would lead to a repugnant result. He was thus not entitled to the
estate.

Purposive rule
 Requires the judge to seek, and promote, the purpose underlying the
legislation.
 It originates from the mischief rule.
 Section 17 A of the Interpretation Act 1948 & 1967 expressly supported
this approach since it requires the interpretation to support or promote
the purpose or objective of the Statute.
 In the case of Mansell v Olins, the issue was whether a farm cottage
attached to the farm house constituted ‘premises' for the purpose of
Rent Act. Lord Simon set out 2 tier test to be taken under the purposive
approach, the first task of the court of construction is to put itself in the
shoes of the draftsman-to consider what he had, and importantly, what
statutory objective he had. Then, the court proceeds to ascertain the
meaning of the statutory language.

Mischief rule
 This approach is undertaken where the court will look for the mischief
that was intended by the legislator to remedy when sometimes the
words/phrases read in the light of the whole statute are not as plain or
unambiguous as intended.
 The court laid down the following principles in the Heydon's case,
 Firstly, what was the common law before the making of the Act.
Followed by what was the mischief and defect for which the common
law did not provide. The next to concern is what remedy the Parliament
passed to cure the mischief. And finally the true reason for the remedy.
 In the case of Corkery v Carpenter, the defendant was riding his bicycle
whilst under the influence of alcohol. S.12 of the Licensing Act 1872
made it an offence to be drunk in charge of a 'carriage' on the highway.
The court applied the mischief rule holding that a riding a bicycle was
within the mischief of the Act as the defendant represented a danger
to himself and other road users.