|
|
Post by Henry on Jul 4, 2015 19:51:35 GMT
I. Issues
- skating onto the footpath
- near miss and charging
- legal issue
II. Relevant Law
- Protection of Footpaths (PoF) Act 2015 (NSW)
III. Applying PoF Act to Jennifer
1. 28 days
2. s 8 Prohibited Use of Footpaths
3. Does the joggers with retractable wheels fall into the other wheeled conveyances?
IV. Conclusion
No. Jennifer doesn't need to pay.
|
|
|
|
Post by lara on Jul 7, 2015 5:05:25 GMT
are you basing your response on the notion that the fine would not be applied?
|
|
|
|
Post by Henry on Jul 7, 2015 17:33:22 GMT
I’m going to.
1. Is the jogger another wheeled conveyance according to the Protection of Footpaths Act 2015 (NSW)?
Thinking about ejusdem generis, Latin for ‘of the same kind’. The principle of statutory interpretation that if words of particular meaning are followed by general words, the general words are limited to the same kind as the particular words (Cook et al. 2015, p.589).
In the literal meaning, ‘other wheeled conveyance’ may include the pair of joggers with retractable wheels in the sole. However, if the Latin maxim is applied, the ‘other wheeled conveyance’ may not include the pair of joggers, because a bicycle, skateboard, and scooter have something in common that the pair of joggers doesn’t have.
Also, thinking about the presumption that penal provisions are strictly construed.
2. Should the footpath be used exclusively by pedestrians according to the Protection of Footpaths Act 2015 (NSW)?
Thinking if this can be another legal issue here.
About the Transport Minister’s report, I’m not sure whether it is a red herring or we can use the presumption that Parliament intends to legislate in conformity with international law.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lara on Jul 8, 2015 22:36:53 GMT
Yes for the 'wheeled conveyance' issue I am applying the same Latin Maxim of ejusdem generis with reference to the Harris case.
Although the more I look at it the more I question my decision. I have also looked at the possibility of applying Noscitur a Sociis.
I am still really trying to understand the second possible 'Issue' arising from the scenario. I believe that the emphasis of the assignment would not just be on identifying one issue. I have looked at a couple of things such as the ambiguity of the word 'thoroughfare'. However am not completely set on another issue for discussion.
Your statement "Should the footpath be used exclusively by pedestrians according to the Protection of Footpaths Act 2015 (NSW)?
Thinking if this can be another legal issue here". I think this is a good one in theory.
The ministers report I also believe is red herring
|
|
|
|
Post by Lara on Jul 9, 2015 5:19:50 GMT
Anyone else have any notable issues?
|
|
|
|
Post by Prakash on Jul 21, 2015 0:10:03 GMT
Apart from all the discussions above, I used s34 of the Interpretation Act 1987(NSW) to determine the purpose ofthe Parliament in promoting the s8 of the Protection of Footpaths Act...
|
|
|
|
Post by Henry on Jul 21, 2015 14:43:24 GMT
s 8(1) leads to a conclusion that is 'manifestly absurd or unreasonable'(s 34(1)(b)(ii) of Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW)), because all the children riding on toy scooters will be charged.
|
|
