Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4 views

    Muhammad Ahmed Jamil 14562585 English Legal System and Legal Method 400LEGSC/400LEG

    Uploaded by

    chmuhammadjamil0806

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Muhammad Ahmed Jamil 14562585 English Legal System and Legal Method 400LEGSC/400LEG

    Uploaded by

    chmuhammadjamil0806
    4 views23 pages

    Original Title

    CW1

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    4 views23 pages

    Muhammad Ahmed Jamil 14562585 English Legal System and Legal Method 400LEGSC/400LEG

    Uploaded by

    chmuhammadjamil0806

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pptx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 23

    NAME : MUHAMMAD AHMED JAMIL

    STUDENT ID : 14562585

    MODULE NAME : ENGLISH LEGAL SYSTEM AND LEGAL METHOD

    MODULE CODE : 400LEGSC/400LEG


    PRESENTATION
    (1)
    RESTRICTION OF OFFENSIVE
    WEAPONS ACT 2019 (C.17)
    1(1) WHAT IS THE RATIONAL FOR PASSING THE RESTRICTION
    OF OFFENSIVE WEAPONS ACT 2019 INTO LAW?

    The Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 2019 was a critical legislation


    that sought to curb the increasing cases of violent crime that include knife
    and acid attacks. Specifically, the Act aimed at:
    • Eliminating knife crime.
    • Curb acid attacks.
    • Ensure public protection.
    • The closure of legal gaps concerning the possession and sale of weapons.
    • Protect the youth from violent crime.
    • Regulate the online purchase of offensive weapons.
    • Giving law enforcers the power to curb violent crime.
    1(2) THROUGH WHAT PROCEDURE WAS THE
    LAW MADE?

    The legislative journey of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 2019


    began as follows:

    • Proposal and readings and debates in the House of Commons; committee


    stage: committee consideration and amendments, report stage: changes
    and further consideration on the report, and finally, House of Lords:
    second thoughts and discussions. In particular, considering the first
    reading in the House of Lords, the RCH had first and second scheduled
    meetings, and the passage of the bill was announced during the second
    part.
    1(3)WHICH SECTIONS OF THE ACT DEALS WITH THE
    SEARCH FOR CORROSIVE SUBSTANCES IN ENGLAND
    AND WALES?

    Upon the search for corrosive substances under restricted conditions in England
    and Wales from the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 6 of 2019, the below
    regulations can be adopted.

    • Section 6. Such includes the power-field initiative related to law behavior,


    authorizing police to approach and stop and search an individual in a public
    place when suspected of carrying a corrosive substance.

    • Section 7. Search of school’s terrain aparri into the act may go on occur only
    when police have reasonable proof to assume that corrosive substances are
    located there.
    1(4)ACCORDING TO SECTION 6 (1) WHAT IS
    THE DEFENCE OF A PERSON FOUND WITH
    CORROSIVE WEAPONS IN PUBLIC?

    The Offensive Weapons Act 2019 outlines the defense in Section 6(1) for a
    person found with corrosive substances in public:

    • Reasonable Excuse: The person can defend themselves if they have a


    reasonable excuse for having the corrosive substance in public.

    • Reasonable Belief: The defense under Section 6(1) involves having a


    reasonable excuse or a reasonable belief for possessing corrosive
    substances in public.
    (2) BEGUM VS SECRETARY OF
    STATE FOR THE HOME
    DEPARTMENT [2020] UKSC 0158
    2(1) WHAT WERE THE THREE ISSUES LAID BEFORE
    THE SUPREME COURT TO CONSIDER IN THIS CASE?

    In this case, three main issues were presented before the Supreme Court to
    consider:

    • Interpretation of the Law: Clarifying the interpretation of the law regarding


    possession of offensive weapons.

    • Defining Reasonable Excuse: Determining what constitutes a reasonable excuse


    for possessing corrosive substances in public.

    • Evaluation of Reasonable Belief: Assessing the criteria for a reasonable belief in


    having lawful authority or excuse for carrying corrosive substances.
    2(2) WHAT WERE THE RESTRICTIONS ORDERED BY
    THE COURT PERTAINING TO WITNESSES IN THIS
    APPEAL?

    The court ordered the following restrictions pertaining to witnesses in this appeal:

    • Anonymity: Witnesses were granted anonymity to protect their identities.

    • Screening: Witnesses were allowed to give evidence from behind screens to prevent them
    from being seen by the public and the defendants.

    • Voice Distortion: Measures were taken to distort witnesses' voices during testimony to
    further protect their identities.

    • Closed Court: Parts of the trial involving witness testimonies were held in a closed court,
    excluding the public and press.
    2(3)WHY DID SECRETARY OF STATE APPEAL THE
    DECISION OF THE SPECIAL IMMIGRATIONS APPEALS
    COMMISSION?

    The Secretary of State appealed the decision of the Appeal Court for the following reasons:

    • Legal Error: Argued that the Appeal Court made a legal error in its interpretation of the
    law.

    • Public Safety: Believed the decision could negatively impact public safety.

    • Precedent: Concerned about setting a precedent that might undermine future


    enforcement of offensive weapon regulations.

    • Policy Implications: Felt the decision could hinder the effectiveness of existing policies
    aimed at reducing violent crime.
    2(4) WHAT WAS THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
    IN THE BEGUM CASE?

    The court of first instance in the Begum case:

    • Was the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC).


    (3) R V (ON APPLICATION OF
    IYIEKE V SECRETARY FOR
    HOME DEPARTMENT) 2022.
    3(1) WHAT WAS THE BASIS OR GROUNDS
    OF APPEAL BY THE IYIEKE?

    The grounds of appeal by Iyieke in the Begum case were:

    • Fair Trial: Argued that his right to a fair trial was violated due to the use of
    undisclosed evidence against him.
    • Procedural Unfairness: Contended that the SIAC's decision was procedurally unfair
    because he was not given sufficient opportunity to respond to the undisclosed
    evidence.
    • Legal Error: Alleged that the SIAC made errors in law in its assessment of the
    evidence and application of legal principles.
    • Human Rights: Raised concerns about the compatibility of the decision with his
    human rights, particularly under Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 8 (right to
    respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
    3(2) WHAT WAS THE DECISION OF THE
    APPEAL TRIBUNAL ON THE RIGHTS TO
    JUDICIAL REVIEW?
    The decision of the Appeal Tribunal on the rights to Judicial Review in the
    Begum case was as follows:

    • Granted Permission: The Appeal Tribunal granted permission for Iyieke to


    pursue judicial review.
    • Concerns Acknowledged: Acknowledged concerns about the fairness of the
    trial and the use of undisclosed evidence.
    • Review Warranted: Found sufficient grounds to warrant a judicial review of
    the decision made by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC).
    • Remitted for Review: The case was remitted to the SIAC for further review
    and consideration, taking into account the concerns raised during the
    appeal.
    3(3) WHAT WAS THE DECISION OF THE
    APPEAL TRIBUNAL REGARDING THE ABOVE ?

    The decision of the Appeal Tribunal regarding the above in the Begum case:

    • Permission Granted: Granted permission for judicial review.


    • Acknowledged Concerns: Acknowledged concerns about fairness and use
    of undisclosed evidence.
    • Review Warranted: Found grounds warranting a judicial review of SIAC's
    decision.
    • Remitted for Further Review: Remitted the case to SIAC for
    reconsideration in light of the appeal.
    3(4) WHAT DID THE APPEAL COURT DECIDE
    REGARDING THE SUBSTANTIVE CASE AND WHAT
    WAS THE SUBSEQUENT DECISION OF THE
    APPELLANT IN THIS CASE?
    The Appeal Court decided the following regarding the substantive case:

    • Substantive Case Upheld: Upheld the decision that Shamima Begum


    could not effectively participate in her appeal proceedings while in the
    Syrian camp.

    The subsequent decision of the appellant in this case:

    • Supreme Court Appeal: Shamima Begum appealed to the Supreme Court


    against the decision of the Appeal Court.
    (4) THE FISH HEALTH
    REGULATION 1992 (NO.3300)
    4(1) IS FISH HEALTH REGULATION 1992 A
    PRIMARY OR SECONDARY LEGISLATION?
    PLEASE SUBSTANTIATE YOUR ANSWER.

    The Fish Health Regulations 1992 is a secondary legislation. Here's why:

    • Enacted under Primary Legislation: It was enacted under the


    authority of the Fisheries Act 1981, which is primary legislation.
    • Details Implementation: Secondary legislation like regulations, made
    under the authority of primary legislation, provide specific details for
    implementing broader laws passed by Parliament.
    • Specific Focus: The Fish Health Regulations 1992 specifically address
    matters related to fish health, which is a narrower aspect of the broader
    fisheries legislation established by the Fisheries Act 1981.
    4(2) WHAT IS THE MAIN PURPOSE OF THIS
    LEGISLATION?

    The main purpose of the Fish Health Regulations 1992 is:

    • Protection of Fish Health: To safeguard the health and welfare of fish


    populations.
    • Prevention of Disease Spread: Prevent the spread of diseases among
    fish populations, both in aquaculture and wild habitats.
    • Regulation of Trade: Regulate the movement and trade of fish and fish
    products to mitigate the risk of disease transmission.
    4(3) WHAT IS THE OBLIGATION ACCORDING TO
    SECTION 11 OF THE ACT ON NOTICING ANY
    SUSPICION OF DISEASE IN FISHES?

    According to Section 11 of the Fish Health Regulations 1992, the obligation


    when noticing any suspicion of disease in fishes includes:

    • Notification: Immediate notification to the appropriate authority,


    typically the Fish Health Inspector or relevant government department.
    • Details: Provide detailed information about the suspected disease,
    including the species of fish affected, symptoms observed, and location.
    • Containment Measures: Implement appropriate containment measures
    to prevent the spread of the disease, such as quarantine or isolation of
    affected fish populations.
    4(4) WHO HAS THE LEGAL POWERS TO OBTAIN
    SAMPLES NECESSARY FOR ESTABLISHING
    WHETHER THERE IS A DISEASE?

    The legal powers to obtain samples necessary for establishing whether


    there is a disease lie with:

    • Fish Health Inspectors: Authorized Fish Health Inspectors have the


    legal authority to obtain samples.
    • Government Authorities: Relevant government authorities, such as
    environmental or fisheries departments, may also have this power.
    • Enforcement Officers: Officers designated by the regulatory body
    overseeing fish health regulations.
    REFERENCE
    United kingdom S.C References:
    Information from the supreme court cases of united kingdom.

    -
    THANK YOU-

    You might also like