Legal Opinion Cinder Ella Kane Welsh
-
Upload
musicalityist -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
0
Transcript of Legal Opinion Cinder Ella Kane Welsh
-
8/12/2019 Legal Opinion Cinder Ella Kane Welsh
1/4
TO: Elisha Watson
FROM: Kane Welsh
RE: Dim Diesel
Issues:
I s the Act in force?
The Nitwits Act 2010 came into force on 1 January 2011, as stated in
section 1(1). The events occurred on 29 December 2013. Therefore
jurisdiction is established.
I s Dim Diesel a person?
There is no evidence on the face of the statute to suggest that Dim Diesel is
not a person.
Did Dim Di esel discharge a fi rearm or throw a stone or other missil e?
The word missile has multiple definitions which will undoubtedlycause
dispute between the prosecution and the defence.
The prosecution is likely to define the word missile as anyphysical
object which can be thrown. This definition of missile encompasses the
petrol, a physical object, which was thrown by Dim Diesel. The defence in
response is likely to define missile along the lines of a weaponwhich is
self propelled or directed by a remote control. The defencesdefinition of
-
8/12/2019 Legal Opinion Cinder Ella Kane Welsh
2/4
missile therefore does NOT include the petrol which was thrown by Dim
Diesel.
The prosecution will argue that the reason their definition of
missile should be considered as correct is that, in terms of the effect on
the community, any person would then be able to go around throwing
objects with the intent to injure, annoy or frighten any person and would
not be liable under section 4(1) of the Nitwits Act 2010 so long as the
aforementioned person was throwing neither a stone nor a self propelled OR
remote controlled weapon as the defence would put it. The prosecution
would also argue that their definition is the more appropriate definition as in
section 4(1) of the Nitwits Act 2010 it states a stone or other missile. The
argument would then turn to the fact that the purpose parliament worded this
subsection in such a way was to give stone as an example of what should
and should not be considered as an other missile, namely other objects,
similar to stones, which are able to be held and projected by hand.
The defence would then argue that their definition of missile is the
more appropriate in terms of the effect on the community as the
prosecutions definition encompasses such a wide range of objects when
talking about what a missile is. This broad definition would allow ridiculous
charges to be filed amongst the community when someone throws a piece of
paper at someone else, or when someone is playing sport and is then hit by a
ball thrown by someone else. By using the defences definition of missile
we are only regarding self propellingOR remote controlled" weapons,
which would protect the country from the danger of actual weapons. The
defence would also argue that their view on the definition of missile is
more appropriate due to the context in which missile is found. Section
4(1) of the Nitwits Act 2010 states anyone who discharges a firearm or
-
8/12/2019 Legal Opinion Cinder Ella Kane Welsh
3/4
throws a stone or other missile is liable. By stating discharges a firearm,
it is a clear indication that parliaments purpose behind including a reference
to a firearm is to give an example of what a missile is, and in this case,
other missile would refer to any other weapon similar to a firearm.
The judge would examine the two opposing arguments on the
definition of missile and would presumably reach the conclusion to adopt
the prosecutions definition in order to expand what might be classified as a
missile to any physical object which can be held and thrown in the palm
of your hand, not just a self propelled OR remote controlled weapon,
weapons which we in New Zealand are lacking in numbers, in order to
allow the Act to be realistically applied.
Did Dim Diesel throw the petrol on the embers so as to injure, annoy or
frighten Ella Daze?
The wording of section 4(1), so as to, implies intent and purpose to
injure, annoy or frighten. As Dim Diesel was not trying to injure, annoy
or frighten Ella Daze, the answer is no.
Is Ella Daze a person?
There is no evidence on the face of the statute to suggest that Ella Daze is
not a person.
-
8/12/2019 Legal Opinion Cinder Ella Kane Welsh
4/4
Would Dim Diesel be li able under Section 4(1) of the Ni twits Act 2010?
Regardless of which definition of the word missile a judge chooses to
accept as appropriate, in the case of Dim Diesel it is clear that it was not his
intent to injure, annoy or frighten Ella Daze, therefore a judge would rule
that Dim Diesel is not liable for conviction under Section 4(1) of the Nitwits
Act 2010 in relation to the charge that the defendant threw a missile,
namely petrol, that resulted in injury.