Class Notes (837,533)
New Zealand (288)
Law (12)
LAWS101 (12)
Lecture 5

STAT Lecture 5.docx

4 Pages
87 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Law
Course
LAWS101
Professor
Donna Buckingham
Semester
Fall

Description
13/03 Legislation 5: Legal Opinion no.1: “I am assuming that the facts have occurred after the act” –FB was not public until after 2006. In the absence of a date I am assuming we have jurisdiction. Legal system course documents: 3 different programmes- Panic Stations may be useful. Look at it later- makes marking transparent by giving 3 examples of papers- some ideas of skills we‟re building towards. Often there is a pivotal word which will change the outcome when it actually enters court.  The Facts: Claus Miowalot breads and boards cats which are enclosed in cat runs. One day he hears a commotion and goes outside to see a hole in the run, and his champion breeder is injured. He sees a dog trotting off with something in its‟ mouth. Claus retrieves his firearm and shoots the dog. Owner of the pedigree dog has a grievance against Claus. He wants to be compensated for its‟ loss. Civil situation. Claus believes he has legal protection for shooting the dog, under 56(1) Dog Control and Hydatids Act, 1982.  The Task: acting for the defendant. Plaintive is Lionel, suing the defendant (Claus) because he alleges this wrong.  Analyse Statutory Provisions:  56. Dogs attacking persons or stock rushing at vehicles- 1. 1)Any person who sees a dog attacking any person, stock, or poultry, or who is himself attacked by any such dog, may forthwith either seize or destroy the dog. 2. 2) deals with the rights of a policeman on how they may treat the dog, provided that there is someone who saw the act, and may identify the dog as responsible. 3. 3) tells the person who seized the dog (under subsection 1) to return it to its owner or take it to a dog control officer. 4. 4) tells the court what it can do- beyond reasonable doubt, find owner and order that the dog be destroyed if it has not already been done.  Sees(verb): visually observed.  Legally relevant:  The date of the incident  Clause is a person  Jaws is a dog  Clause was at the time of the incident, inside reading. (Before that you can elect to destroy a dog under 56(1) of the Dog Control and Hydatids Act 1982, you must see the dog attacking).  Attack was on the cat- establish that the cat is “stock”. Stock: (b) other animal that is kept within a fence of enclosure for domestic or farming purposes. Relevant whether the cat was in a cat run, and for what purpose that was.  Issues: contentious or non-contentious elements that need to be satisfied. Turning legally relevant fact into a question.  Is the act in force on the date of the incident? Non contentious.  Does it apply to the destruction of Jaws? –“relating to the control of dogs”- found in the long title. Non contentious.  Is Claus „any person‟? Non contentious.  Did Claus „see a dog attacking‟? Contentious: Claus was inside reading- hears a disturbance- when he gets there, the dog is already some distance away. If the act requires somebody to visually observe the engagement to lawfully destroy, Claus may not be able to argue that he can use section 56 clause 1 as a shield to liability.  Is the cat „stock‟ within the definition in section 2 paragraph (b)? Contentious.  ALWAYS THINK ABOUT BOTH SIDES OF THE
More Less

Related notes for LAWS101

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit