ATAR Notes: Forum

SACE Stuff => Business Studies => SACE => Legal Studies => Topic started by: clarke54321 on July 21, 2015, 06:17:46 pm

Title: The Studded Belt Case
Post by: clarke54321 on July 21, 2015, 06:17:46 pm

What are the material facts of the studded belt case?

Title: Re: The Studded Belt Case
Post by: Alter on July 21, 2015, 06:33:31 pm

I'll strip it down to the basic material facts for you:

- A man was wearing a belt with silver studs and was in public. As a result, he was charged with possessing a regulated weapon.
- At his case, the Magistrates' Court found him guilty of "possessing a regulated weapon without a lawful excuse".
- He then appealed to Supreme Court. (Appealed on Control of Weapons Act, section 6 (i))
- The Supreme Court decided that the studded belt is not a weapon, but it can be used as one. Thus, the appellant was found not guilty of the original crime.
- A statute was interpreted and thus precedent was created.

This case is most commonly referred to when talking about statutory interpretation. It was the role of the Supreme Court to engage in statutory interpretation when interpreting the terms "regulated weapon" and "lawful excuse" and determining how to apply the legislation to this set of facts.

Hope this helps.

edit: I'm assuming this was meant to be posted in the VCE subforum? I hadn't even realised I was in the SACE one :p

Title: Re: The Studded Belt Case
Post by: clarke54321 on July 21, 2015, 06:44:37 pm

Quote from: Alter on July 21, 2015, 06:33:31 pm

I'll strip it down to the basic material facts for you:

- A man was wearing a belt with silver studs and was in public. As a result, he was charged with possessing a regulated weapon.
- At his case, the Magistrates' Court found him guilty of "possessing a regulated weapon without a lawful excuse".
- He then appealed to Supreme Court. (Appealed on Control of Weapons Act, section 6 (i))
- The Supreme Court decided that the studded belt is not a weapon, but it can be used as one. Thus, the appellant was found not guilty of the original crime.
- A statute was interpreted and thus precedent was created.

This case is most commonly referred to when talking about statutory interpretation. It was the role of the Supreme Court to engage in statutory interpretation when interpreting the terms "regulated weapon" and "lawful excuse" and determining how to apply the legislation to this set of facts.

Hope this help.

edit: I'm assuming this was meant to be posted in the VCE subforum? I hadn't even realised I was in the SACE one :p

Thank-you very much! Your posts are always so helpful :)