Unit 2 Case Law Mock Exam 2024 PDF

**Unit 2 -- Case Law -- 03.10.24** Mock will be on weeks 3 or 4 -- most likely not weeks 1 or 2 Material facts -- essential facts relevant to the judgement of the case - Helps us understand whether the ratio of this case is relevant for future cases - Whether it will be distinguished Ra...

**Unit 2 -- Case Law -- 03.10.24** Mock will be on weeks 3 or 4 -- most likely not weeks 1 or 2 Material facts -- essential facts relevant to the judgement of the case - Helps us understand whether the ratio of this case is relevant for future cases - Whether it will be distinguished Ratio -- proposition of law -- reason for the decision - Legal rule which the judge decided and applied his decision - Finds potential gaps in the law - Come up with a rule to help determine decision - Self-contained statement of the legal rule which the judge decided and applied to arrive at a decision Obiter dicta - **Engage Task 2 -- Case Law analysis** +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | ***Legal Authority *** |    | | | | | ***(eg statute, case name) *** | Material facts / Ratio & Obiter  | +===================================+===================================+ | ***  *** |    | | | | | ***R v Monarch \[2012\] HL *** | Material facts   | | | | | ***  *** | - Mr Monarch allowed his dogs | | | to flush out fox \[or wild | | ***  *** | mammal\] for several minutes | | |   | | ***  *** | | | | | | ***  *** | | | | - Then he shot the fox as the | | | dogs closed in  | | | | | | | | | | | | - Mr Monarch claims that it was | | | the first opportunity to kill | | | the fox without risk of | | | protracted death or | | | endangering the hounds  | | | | | | Ratio  | | | | | | Lord Gore   | | | | | | In my view, this can only be | | | achieved if the huntsman is | | | obliged to take reasonable steps | | | to shoot dead the fox, | | | immediately upon the fox breaking | | | cover. (Pursuit is not relevant | | | as it can lead to absurdity).  | | | | | | (Point of law in question -- | | | definition of pursuit)  | | | | | |   | | | | | | ***"Hunting"* and "pursuit" | | | starts immediately when the fox | | | breaks cover** | | | | | |  \*point that was missing was | | | when the pursuit starts -- this | | | is the question of law that is | | | the gap\* | | | | | | "whether a fox is being hunted | | | from the moment it breaks cover | | | and the pursuit begins; or does | | | it only become hunting when the | | | pursuit has been continuing for a | | | certain length of time? If so, | | | for how long? In effect, when | | | does 'hunting for' a fox, become | | | 'hunting' under section 1." - the | | | question of law is laid out in | | | this case | | | | | |   | | | | | | Obiter  | | | | | | Lord Throp  | | | | | | - Whilst I may **speculate** | | | that a fox may suffer less if | | | it is pursued with reasonably | | | good prospects of escape, | | | than if it is subjected to | | | the trauma of being flushed | | | out with no means of escape | | | and then shot, this is not a | | | matter for this court to rule | | | upon"    | | | | | | - Speculate is the key word to | | | know its obiter | | | | | | Lord Shearwood (dissenting)  | | | | | | His entire speech is obiter -- | | | dissenting judgement | | | | | | Lord Carruthers (dissenting)  | | | | | |  His entire speech is obiter -- | | | dissenting judgement | | | | | | - Any dissenting judgement is | | | obiter -- ultimately does not | | | 'matter' (times it could be | | | useful, like in the sense of | | | critically evaluate of the | | | judgements) | | | | | |    | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | |    | | | | | | Material facts  | | | | | | - Eagle owl used to hunt  | | | | | | | | | | | | - Dogs were used to flush the | | | fox  | | | | | | | | | | | | - Unsuccessful in catching the | | | prey  | | | | | | Question rose -- does the bird | | | need to be successful in catching | | | its prey | | | | | | Ratio  | | | | | | Melia J & Montecue J  | | | | | |   | | | | | |  Nevertheless, for the purposes | | | of the Falconry Exemption to this | | | Act the success or otherwise of | | | the hunt is irrelevant  | | | | | |   | | | | | | Obiter  | | | | | | Melia J   | | | | | | The inclusion of the Falconry | | | Exemption to this Act, would | | | suggest that the legislators did | | | not regard the use of birds of | | | prey for hunting to involve such | | | cruelty.  | | | | | | [Jeffries J | | | (dissenting)]  | | | | | | Any dissenting judgement is | | | obiter  | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | *** ***  |    | | | | | ***R v Chamberlain* \[2007\] | **Material facts**  | | HC(QBD)**  | | | |  Dogs used to flush fox from | |    | cover to be hunted by eagles | | | | | |  four minutes before the birds of | | | prey were released.  | | | | | |    | | | | | |   | | | | | | Does the falconry exemption apply | | | -- more dogs than birds- claiming | | | falconry exemption applies used | | | birds-- establish that the birds | | | were not an essential aspect of | | | the hunt | | | | | | **Ratio**  | | | | | | [Felstead J & Klein | | | J]  | | | | | |  the use of the dogs to flush out | | | the mammal should incidental to | | | the use of birds of prey for | | | hunting rather than the other way | | | around.  the birds were not an | | | essential aspect of the | | | defendants' activities  | | | | | | - Birds are suppose to be the | | | main thing, not the dogs | | | | | | **Obiter**  | | | | | | [Patterson J]  | | | | | |   | | | | | |   Not because of the | | | chicken-and-egg of which came | | | first, the falcon or the dogs, | | | but because the Act was passed to | | | rid our modern society of the | | | barbaric protracted fright of the | | | innocent fox. Hunting and other | | | blood sports are degrading, both | | | for the hunter and the hunted.   | | | | | |    | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+