Web5 de out. de 2015 · Higgon v O’Dea [1962] war 140; The Golden Rule. Exception of the literal rule; Allows court to take a commonsence approach where the literal rule causes … WebHiggon v O’Dea [1962] WAR 140 In that case the Supreme Court of Western Australia had to interpret s 84 of the Police Act 1892 (WA), which penalised every person who knowingly allowed children under the age of 16 years to enter and remain in any ‘shop or other place of public resort’ that they own The underlying aim of the statute was to …
62 / Chapter 6 Penalty:
Web21 de jul. de 2015 · Higgon v O’Dea [1962] WAR 140 where the literal interpretation the law which was intended to keep minors away from places of ill repute had the unhappy consequence of also prohibiting them from entering any shop The golden rule (contextualism) The golden rule is now called contextualism (drafting errors don’t prevent … WebFinal Report (August 1992) - Law Reform Commission of Western ... rcw leaving a child unattended in a vehicle
Case Note Court: High Court of Australia Judges: Kiefel, Bell, …
WebEg, Higgon v O’Dea [1962]: “Every person who shall have or keep any house, shop, or room, or any place of public resort, and who shall…Knowingly permit or suffer persons apparently under the age of 16 years to enter and remain therein… [commits an offence] s 84 Police Act 1892” Web18 de out. de 2015 · Higgon v O’Dea [1962] WAR 140, a provision badly drafted which on a literal reading it meant that anyone who ran a shop or amusement arcade could not let a 16 year old enter their premise; leading to an absurd result. WebSID490401088_CaseAnalysis - Free download as Word Doc (.doc / .docx), PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free. SID490401088_CaseAnalysis rcw legal financial obligations