Assignment: legal methods and history of courts

Question:
Who wrote the concurring opinions and the dissenting opinions? (2M)
In 200 words each, explain the ratio decidendi of each judge. (10M)
Which judge’s opinion do you most relate to and why? If none, what is your opinion? Justify
the same.
Answer:
1) Though the reasons were different for giving such a judgment, the concurring
judgments were written/given by Justice Foster and Justice Handy, they both agreed
that the defendants should be acquitted. The dissenting opinions were also given for
different reasons but Justice Tatting and Justice Keen argued that the defendants
should be convicted.
2) The ratio decidendi of each judge is as follows:
 TRUEPENNY CJ: the ratio decidendi of Truepenny CJ is that the court should
apply the statute's plain meaning that prohibits murder and that the statute clearly
covers the defendants’ conduct. He acknowledges that the case presents a moral
dilemma, but he believes it is not within the court’s province to ignore or modify
the law. He suggests that the proper solution is to affirm the conviction and
sentence but to recommend the executive to grant clemency to the defendants.
 Foster J: the ratio decidendi of Foster J is that the court should recognize that the
defendants were in a state of nature when they were trapped in the cave and that
the laws of society did not apply to them and they were to abide by the laws of
nature. He argues that the statute that prohibits murder was intended to regulate
social relations and that it has no meaning in a situation where relations are
impossible. He also contends that the defendants acted in self-defense, which is a
natural right that overrides any positive law. he concludes that the defendants are
innocent of any crime.
 Tatting J: the ratio decidendi of Tatting J is that the courts should uphold the rule
of law and respect the separation of powers. He criticizes Foster J’s argument as
being based on a fictional and arbitrary notion of a state of nature, and as being
inconsistent with the facts of the case. He also rejects Foster J’s argument about
self-defense, as he finds it illogical and immortal to equate killing an innocent
person with defending oneself from an aggressor. He admits that he is troubled by
the harshness of the statute, but he says that he cannot find a valid legal basis to
acquit the defendants. He decides to recuse himself from the case, as he feels
unable to render a judgment.
 Keen J: The ratio decidendi of Keen J is that the court should adhere to a strict and
literal interpretation of the statute and that any deviation from it would amount to
judicial legislation. He asserts that the court’s only function is to apply the law as
it is written, and not to question its wisdom or morality. He dismisses Foster J’s
argument as being based on a fallacious and irrelevant appeal to nature law, and as
being contrary to the principle of legal certainty. He also rejects Handy J’s
arguments as being a subjective and arbitrary assessment of public opinion, and as
 being incompatible with the rule of law. He affirms that conviction and sentence
without hesitation.
 Handy J: the ratio decidendi of Handy J is that the court should consider the
common sense and justice of the case, and not be bound by technicalities or
formalities. He argues that the statute that prohibits murder was never meant to
apply to such an extraordinary situation and that applying it would lead to absurd
and unjust results. He also maintains that the court should reflect the will of the
people, and not impose its own views and preferences. He cited various sources of
public opinion, such as polls, newspapers, and letters, to show that there is
widespread support for acquitting the defendants. He reverses the conviction and
sentence with confidence.
3) I most relate to Handy J’s opinion, because I think he takes a pragmatic and humane
approach to the case. I agree with him that the law should not be applied mechanically
or rigidly, but rather flexibly and reasonably. I also agree with him that the court
should respect the sentiments and values of society, and not act in isolation or
defiance. I think that his opinion best balances the interests of justice and mercy, and
avoids both legalism and anarchy.