law paper 1

Question 1

Police Bail

Question 2

Court bail

Question 3

aim of bail

Question 4

criticms of bail

Question 5

what does PACE code A regulate

Question 6

Pace code

Question 7

pace

Question 8

pace

Question 9

pac

Question 10

Breach of these procedure will lead to?

Answer 10

• unlawful procedures -

Question 11

Osman v DPP

Question 12

Training of magistrates

Question 13

appointment and selection of magistrates

Question 14

training of juries

Question 15

evaluation of magistrates

Question 16

evaluationof juries

Question 17

qualifiecation of the judges

Question 18

evaluate the ways of avoiding precednet

Question 19

why avoid precedents

Question 20

removal of judges

Question 21

Ejusdem generi

Answer 21

This rules applies when a statute contains a list of items that are followed by ‘other’. When judges determine what is included in the ‘other’, they look at the context of the other words and things included in the list to see if it would apply to other things. It is the idea that Acts of Parliament are aware that they may have missed things off the list so they allow the judges to add things into the list that should fit there should they miss off something. Also, it allows new items that are invented to be included. See Powell v Kempton Park Racecourse (1899)

Question 22

what is a hanstard

Question 23

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius

Answer 23

The express mention of one thing excludes others’. This means if there is a closed list with no ‘other’ on the end, then it can only include these certain words and no others. See Tempest v Kilner (1846)

Question 24

Noscitur a sociis

Answer 24

This rule applies when there is a list of items within the statute and the item in question is included in this list, but the context of the items in this list does not match the word in question, suggesting it should not be there. Context can be different for each case, so sometimes a word may fit there but in the specific case and interpretation it may not fit there. See Inland Commissioners v Frere (1965)

Question 25

argument for and against Woolf reforms

Question 26

mediation

Question 27

negotiation

Question 28

arbitration

Question 29

consolidation