Understanding Tort Law - Term Paper Example

?Tort Law Tort law is a section of the law of England and Wales that deals with civil crimes. Unlike criminal wrongs, civil wrongs are of interest and hence the police force has a duty to enforce the law by arresting the wrong doers. The British tort law consists of a number of torts that are distinguished by their different procedures and remedies offered by the court (Harlow, 2005). Offences and the intention of doing offence changes constantly and this have made the judiciary to respond by introducing torts to cover the different form of offences. The main area of concern has been crimes resulting from negligence and the resultant action has created torts that cover the action. To maintain its clean-country status, UK has invented torts that are aimed at prosecuting people involved in littering. From the given scenario, the three individuals are involved in littering and therefore they have a case to answer according to the tort law. According to the common tort laws governing the country, littering in the public is an offence. The law defines litter as item that defaces the environment such as bottles, papers and other such things. From the given scenario Jamal, Julia and Junita are arrested and convicted for littering. Later the three individuals made an appeal basing their argument on the fact that their mistakes were unintentional. Although the offences were not intentional, the three individuals have a tort to answer before the court. To succeed in the prosecution the judges will apply statutory and law aids in the statutory interpretation to determine the verdict. Statutory interpretation is the process through which judges and magistrate interpret laws and statues in the law before applying them in decision-making. For the court to fulfil its purpose, it needs to interpret or decide the different meaning of the different statues contained in the law. Although the parliament has the responsibility of making laws, the court has the duty of deciding and applying the laws accordingly. In the interpretation process UK courts applies some well-known conventions to avoid ambiguities. The court proceedings and operations have great significance on the importance of the different acts passed by the parliament. In the court, preceding the whole act will be read and from its title, the judges can determine the necessary objects. In the first case, Jamal dropped litter from a split shopping bag unintentionally. For the court to arrive to an appropriate decision, it needs to apply rules and other legal aids. The first important rule that the court is most likely to apply is the littering statute. Law against littering is a section of environmental protection act of 1990 (Harlow, 2005). The law defines littering as an offence that attracts a legal punishment. The section defines littering as discarding of litter in unauthorized public places with an exception of places allowed by the law. Jamal, junta, and Julia will be prosecuted under section 87 of the environmental Act if found guilty. To determine the verdict the court needs to interpret the act by first defining litter and littering. According to the act, litter includes any foreign material that is introduced to the environment with intent, this include bottles, paper wrappings, food and other form of rubbish. The law however distinguish between refuse and litter with the latter being unavoidable materials introduced to the environment and they are judged using a different law. Basing on this definition the court will be in a good position to interpret the act according to the committed offences. The appropriate interpretation of the act will be “if a person discards or drops litter of any form in places covered by the environmental Act. If a person leaves things in any circumstance whatsoever that tend or contribute to environmental defacement resulting from littering in any place covered by the Act, the court shall find him or her guilty of an offence.” Based on this interpretation the court can proceed to read the possible penalty to offenders. According to section 87 of the environmental Act, a person found guilty of littering is liable to a fine of not less than ?100. The maximum possible penalty to the offenders will be ?2,500 plus any additional or resultant costs (Harlow, 2005). From this interpretation, the court is likely to reach an appropriate decision according to the presented facts. The UK rules applied in statutory interpretation result from the work and analysis conducted by John Willis in his 1938 article. According to the analysis, a court has the mandate to invoke rules to produce the desired justice according to the presented case. Although most common rules like littering are the most affected by the statutory interpretation, the court treats any logical interpretation with utmost validity. In the three cases, the environmental act under section 87 will provide the basis for any valid interpretation of the law. It would however be difficult to determine or predict the particular approach that the court will take with utmost certainty. Present court rulings and interpretation of common torts are based on purposive approach and not on the literal meaning of the sections and acts of the common laws. This implies that the judges in the three cases will also consider the purpose or intention of the accused person before making their verdict. Although the three accused persons committed offences that attract a penalty, the offences were committed without intent. The court will therefore need to consider any defence that might be raised from this particular claim. The three cases are examples of unintentional torts. However, the resultant damages were caused by negligence. The given scenarios are unintentional since the convicted person did not intend to cause harm. In this case, the court will not be required to produce evidence to prove that the accused person is guilty of the committed offences. The court will be required to make a purposive interpretation of the law. The judges are therefore expected to read the whole statute that concerns environmental protection and apply it as an interpretation aid. Using section 87 of the environmental protection Act, the court will be able to determine whether the appeal made by the accused has any validity. The judges will be required to make a decision that will either convict or set the accused persons free. If the three individuals are found guilty, the court will expect them to pay a fine not less than ?100 and not exceeding ?2,500. On the other hand, the court may decide to free the accused persons based on their appeals. This implies that the accused person will base their appeal on lack of knowledge when the offence was committed. In the first case, litter dropped from the accused person’s shopping bag without his knowledge. Although the accused person committed an offence that is of public concern, the court needs to consider the intention in the offence before passing the verdict. The court also needs to consider the extent of the damages caused from the act of negligence as defined by the environmental Act. Considering the given scenario the court is not in a position to prove that the accused persons committed the stated offences and therefore the court will treat the three cases with equality. In addition, the court is unable to verify the extent of the resultant damages and therefore the three cases would have a complicated precedent. Similarly, the accused persons have no legal basis to prove that their offences were unintentional. This implies that their appeal for lack of information lacks validity as possible defence. In addition, the court lacks the capacity to prove the three persons committed the stated offences. Faced with these constraints the judge will rely on statutory interpretations to make his rulings. The statutory interpretation will also determine the severity of the case and the possible conviction. Concerning the three cases, the judge will be required to analyse the general meanings of the words or the general contexts of the statute. The judge also needs to make a definition of littering according to the statute (Harlow, 2005). The judge will also be required to evaluate the damages caused by littering according to the intention of the convict. From these considerations, the judge will be able to determine if the appeal made by the accused persons is a valid appeal. Conclusion Unlike the common criminal law, tort law is concerned with civil crimes or crimes that are of public interest. From the three given cases, the offenders caused damages to the environment and therefore they are liable for their offences according to the law of tort. Although the three offenders claim that the committed offences were not intentional, the court has to prove that the three persons are guilty. The judges will therefore rely on statutory interpretation and other legal aids to pass their verdict. In particular, the judge will be required to interpret the littering section of the 1990 environmental Act. In the three cases, the judges have no basis to proof that the three individuals committed the offences intentionally. On the other hand, the accused persons are unable to prove to the court that their offences were unintentional. The judges will base their ruling from statutory interpretation of the environmental protection Act. Reference Harlow, C 2005, Understanding tort law, Sweet &Maxwell Ltd, London. Read More