LAW OF BLASPHEMY

LAW OF BLASPHEMY

Law of Blasphemy depicts about the law limiting to the freedom of speech and terminology or any irreverence words towards the holy personages, spiritual artifacts, customs, beliefs etc (Gray, 2010). The social function against the law is that the person has argued against the philosophy of the religion and has commented on the religious god. This was the social function of the law. Behavior of this law covers that people are free to express their words towards the holy personages, spiritual artifacts etc. The behavior of this case shows that this does not apply on the areas which are related to any broadcasts or stage production. The aim of the law and its use can be defined as that this act was made an offence for any individual who can deny the truth and reality associated with any religious and they can also deny the divine authority which may relate to any holy article.

JUDGMENT OF HIGH COURT

Various judgment of high court are as follows :

• Regulations of European Union are enforceable in all the member states of the Europe and there transposed in the national law of the countries. So it is essential for the judge of the High Court to follow while taking any decisions. These legislatives are to be followed by the judge in accordance to different legislative procedures as per the issue (Collins, 2004).
• By-law of local council is the powers which are granted in accordance with the Act of parliament of UK and this can also be created by the private companies and before its implementation they are to be government. Judge of the High court is bound to follow the by-law of the local council if it is approved by the government and on the basis of which they can execute their correct decisions.
• Judge of High court also has to follow the judgment of the Court of appeal as even it is related to the common law case. The judgment which is given by the court of appeal is essential to be followed by the judge because this judgment is associated with the second most senior court of appeal in the entire England (Milner, 2011).
• Act of Parliament are the primary legislation of the United Kingdom as they are passed after the approval of Parliament of UK and then it becomes the fraction of Statute of law of country. At the time when the case is related with any act which is passed by the parliament of the country, than it is obligatory for the judge of the high court to follow on the grounds of common law (Epstein, 2003). Decision of the high court is to be only made by examining the legislation of the parliament.
• Decision made by the UK Borders Agency to remove the right of the students to work in UK is cannot be followed by the High Court judge and this can be invalidate on the common law of grounds. The reason behind that the judge cannot follow the order of UK Borders Agency is that this agency does not have any right to issue any order against the public (Collins, 2004). This authority can only handle the matters related to immigration, permission for residence, job permit, citizenship etc.
• If a UK Act of Parliament conflicted with earlier EU regulations, the court of the UK does not have to follow both the laws. The regulations of the European Law depicts that at the time when there is conflict between the European Union regulations and any Act of Parliament of UK, than the judge of the High Court has to follow the regulations of the EU.  Whenever the act related to the parliament of UK are conflicts with EU, then laws if EU is to be followed by the judge of High court as they cannot invalidate the case on grounds of common law (European Union law, 1998).
• There are three different ways in which the judgment in a common law case decided in the Court of Appeal can cease to be good law:

1. First exception is that when there are conflicting decisions in those cases which are related to the past case of Court of Appeal, in this case the decision of the court will play its role. Court has the option to choose that which case will be follow or which case they will reject (Court of Appeal, 2014).
2. Another exception depicts about the decision which are made as per the in error those decision which are taken carelessly or due to any mistake. The reasons behind these decisions are due to the acts which relevant in terms of parliament or the other laws are not considered by the court. These exception states about the material irregularities (Schaffer, 2009).
3. Third exception is about the decision of the Court of Appeal which is based on previous decision not on the decision making of the House of Lords (Court of Appeal, 2014). In this type of the situations the Court of Appeal can take their own decision if there is any conflict due to the decisions made by the House of Lords.

RYAN vs THE QUEEN (1967)

• Four different views explained by the Barwick CJ:

1. Explanation of the applicants can be suspected and it can be conclude that the gun which was fired was intentionally fired.
2. Gun was fired intentionally, but not for giving any harm to deceased one, the intention was only for the self protection (High Court of Australia, 2000).
3. Third view is that Barwick was in panic and due to which he had triggered the gun and his intention was not to harm or frighten him.
4. Last view which was explained by him that the trigger of the gun was pressed due to convulsive way.

• The legal distinctions between the views drawn by Barwick CJ are that the case was of sane and an insane which was accused. He also drawn that those distinctions which are comprised of long dominated are concerns towards the working of human mind and these distinctions may be voluntary or involuntary action (High Court of Australia, 2000).
• Barwick CJ feels that the legal issue should not be put to the jury that there was not any defense which is leading towards the acquittal and they cannot be put against the jury. Windeyer has considered only the three scenarios which can be considered as legal issue and can be put to the jury.
• There were four scenarios which were not accepted by the Windeyer is that the gun was fired intentionally, intention of firing was for the self protection, third is that Barwick was in panic and the last was that the trigger of the gun was pressed due to convulsive way. Windeyer not accept because the description of pressing the trigger was inadvertent and it was also considered as ambiguous and in accordance with the view of case, the scenarios are also not as per the subject matter.
• The two judgments which can be agreed and make more sense are the third and fourth. Third judgment was that Barwick was in panic and due to which he had triggered the gun and fourth was trigger of the gun was pressed due to spastic way (High Court of Australia, 2000). These were the consistent with and admission and on other judge can considered as an accident. These facts makes more sense is due to possibility of the views in material of case.
• The decision of the Australian case affect the development of the English Law as the Central Criminal Court of Sydney has takes its right decision for the Barwick CJ and this decision of court helps the English law in their development. The reason for the development of this law was that the jurisdiction has covered all the subject matter in detail way and reasons and justice are also warranted in this case.

Circumstances held responsible

• There are some circumstances in which the lower court in the English Legal System cannot follow the earlier decisions of a higher court. First circumstance is that if the precedent was set up any inferior court, than the judge if the court has not follow the decisions but they can only consider them. Another circumstance is that if there was any lack of care during the initial stage or “Per Incuriam” and also if there is any material difference between the cases (Nysten-Haarala, Lee, and Lehto, 2010).
• Circumstances in which the Court of Appeal depart from in its own earlier judgments are, first is that if the decisions which are made earlier, not based on knowing any specific law, another is when there is any two different earlier conflicting decisions (Heine, and Kerber, 2002). Third is conflict between decision of Supreme Court and the last one is that, when  it was assumed that law was exist in the earlier case.
• As positions of Supreme Court Judge, when there is situation that earlier decisions are strongly disagree, this can be stated as exception to the circumstance. The earlier decision can be considered as an exception under the four exceptions which can be used by the judge of Supreme Court (Miller, 2011). The earlier decisions will be followed only on those grounds that they are based on specific law, no conflict in the earlier decision making.

Various Conditions

Under the principles of statutory interpretation, for finding Andrew guilty as charged, he cannot carry piranha fishes in the polythene as they are very dangerous. According to the act of Public Transport Safety Act, 2009, any dangerous animal during the public transport service cannot be possessed (Francis, 2010). Another reason to on the basis of which Andrew can be found as a guilty is that those dangerous fishes were also not properly carried and protected. Under the schedule 1 of Public Transport Safety Act, 2009, that those animals which are carnivores are cannot be carried while transport.

Andrew will also be guilty even if the electric eel is carried by him during the time of public transport services instead of piranha. Electric eel is also more dangerous than the piranha fish and it may cause electric shock to the passengers in the bus if they are not carried in any appropriate box. The Act of Public Transport Safety Act, 2009 will also applied in this condition as electric eel is also one of dangerous fish, which can cause any injury to the passengers during the transport in public bus.

The case for the finding if the relevant provision had instead from a fictitious Weapons Act 2009, then Andrew cannot be finding as guilty. Weapons Act 2009 can only be implemented in that condition if the individual has any hazardous weapon and it may cause any injury wound or cut to another person (Francis, 2010). Andrew can found guilty in only that condition if he have any weapons while transport during the public bus.

Considering on potential defense on the grounds that the section Beatrice is charged under the section 2 of Public Transport Safety Act, 2009 is that the dangerous wild animal which was carried by him during the transport was fully protected and secured. This animal can also be not escape from her polythene bag. Another potential defense is that those fishes are also not liberal that they can escape and cause injury to any other person.

STATUTORY INTERPRETATIONS TO ARRIVE AT STATUTORY PROVISION

Statutory interpretations are that process in which the court interpret and apply the legislation and most of the time when the interpretation is essential when it involves statute. There are different rules which are involved in the statutory interpretation while arriving on the meaning of statutory provision.

• Mischief Rule: It depicts that for the statutory interpretation, there are four things which are to be considered. They are consideration of common law, reason if the common law is not applicable, remedy given by parliament and reason for the remedy (Statutory Interpretation, 2014).
• Literal Rule: Second rule is that for statutory interpretation, only the plain language is to be used which is related with the statue.
• Golden Rule: This rule is based on the concept of the Judge, in this rule it allows the judge to think depart or beyond from the world’s normal meaning and this is done to evade an absurd result (Statutory Interpretation, 2014).

Concept

Basic Detail

Sources of law: Sources of law can be defined as the state from which the regulations of laws are derived as a force or validity (Adams, 2010). There are various factors which can be regarded as sources of law, such as precedents, legislation, customs, preparatory works, and statutory interpretations.

Treaty articles: Treaty articles are the international agreement or it can be defines as when any agreement takes place between two countries under the international law are termed as treaty articles.

Regulations:  Regulations are adopted by means of different legislative procedures and they can be immediately enforceable in any member state.

Directives:  These are self-executing and they are the orders and instructions which are issued by the central authority of the country (Karsten and Sinai, 2003).

Effects

Direct effect: Direct effect of the European law assists the individuals to invoke the provision of Europe in front of the national court or European court.  (Epstein, 2003).

Indirect effect: This are applied in these cases where the European court has to interpret the national law when there is any defectively implemented directive.

Principle

“Francovich” Principle depicts about decision of the court which infers that member state is liable to pay compensation to the person who has suffered a loss due to the failure of the member state.

Result

Jean can take action against the government in UK court using the Treaty Article, as it was the policy which was introduce by the member states that at the time of funding for the students “no student is denied to access to state-guarantee grants loans, or any other funding”. Hean can take the action against as it was the policy of the government and if there are any actions against this policy than person can appeal in the court for their right.

CONCLUSION

From the above study it can be concluded that there are different laws and regulations which are applied as per the different rules and regulations designed by the government of the country. They are only enforceable when they are valid and legal in the eyes of court and law of the country.

REFERENCES

• Collins, H. 2004. Good Faith in European Contract Law. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 14(2), pp. 229-254.
• Epstein, R. 2003. A common law for labor relations: a critique of the New Deal labor legislation. Yale Law Journal. 92, pp. 1357-1408.
• Gray, J., 2010. Legal commentary. Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance. 18(3). pp.293-300.
• Heine, K. and Kerber, W. 2002. European Corporate Laws, Regulatory Competition & Path Dependence. European Journal of Law and Economics. 13, pp. 43–71.
• Karsten, J. and Sinai, A. 2003. The Action Plan on European Contract Law: Perspectives for the Future of European Contract Law and EC Consumer Law. Journal of Consumer Policy. 26, pp. 159–195.

UPTO50%

Avail The Benefit Today!

To View this & another 50000+ free

Enter Email

Submit