The Issue of Statutory Interpretation - Assignment Example

STАTUTОRY INTЕRРRЕTАTIОN Name of Student Subject Name Here Date Here STАTUTОRY INTЕRРRЕTАTIОN Issue The issue to be decided is whether Jimmy, as revealed in the case study, can rightfully use the pathway owned by his neighbor to skate in the first place. The other issue to be decided is on Jimmy causing noise disturbance to his neighbor who is the owner of the land he is using for skating. The other decision to be made is whether Jimmy can use the pathway which is not a designated area for skating for his skating activity. Rules This problem touches on the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW), section 633A “633A Use of skateboards, roller blades, and roller skates. As stipulated by this law an individual is only allowed by the court of law to use skateboards, roller skates, and roller blades in designated areas which might include some public places1. Using this equipment elsewhere other than the designated areas for use is an offence according to this law. In this case, Jimmy is using a public pathway which is not entirely public considering that it is under the ownership of his neighbor and not of the local government, for his skating activity. He has therefore committed an offense by not using the designated area for his skating activities. On the other hand, since the pathway is not entirely a public place Jimmy hasn't ask for his neighbor’s consent on using the pathway for his skating activity. As revealed in the case study Jimmy didn’t seek any consent from his neighbor the property owner therefore further breaking the law. The other Law broken by Jimmy as revealed in the case study is breaking the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW), section 633A. This law stipulates that an individual in a public place is guilty of offense in case he uses skating equipment to obstruct, inconvenience or cause danger to other people2. In this case, Jimmy inconvenience’s his neighbor whose property covers the pathway he uses for his skating activity. The neighbor complained concerning noise disturbance caused by Jimmy’s skating activity. In this case, Jimmy broke the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW), section 633A similar in the Hojnowski vs. Vas Skate Park case. A few major factors that the court will consider in determining whether Jimmy has broken the-the Local Government Act 1993 (NSW), section 633A3 law include; Whether the area where Jimmy was skating was actually a designated skating area How Jimmy inconvenienced his neighbor or any individual while carrying out his skating activity Whether Jimmy was negligent by using a modified hover board whose functionality was incapacitated This test is taken from the Hojnowski vs. Vas Skate Park case which slightly relates to our current case study. Apply The Local Government Act 1993 (NSW), section 633A law further stipulates that whether in public area or skating designated area skating activities should be carried out in a manner that it does to obstruct, inconvenience or cause danger to other people4. Skating activity therefore as stipulated by this particular law should be carried out in a moderated manner. Since the pathway is located in the neighbor’s property this means that the pathway is actually not a public area. Jimmy is therefore not allowed to skate in this particular are considering that it is not a public area. On the other hand Jimmy is allowed by the law to skate if he is the rightful owner of the property of if he has gained permit from the property’s owner. Evidently Jimmy din not seek any permit from the property’s owner before carrying out his skating activity in this particular area. Jimmy therefore is guilty for skating in an area that is neither public nor designated by the court of law. Jimmy neighbor complained of jimmy inconveniencing him due to his skating activity. In this case Jimmy’s skating activity was causing noise disturbance to him. On the other hand the area where Jimmy was carrying out his skating a activity in his premises therefore by the law he has the mandate to deter Jimmy from skating in that particular area. On the other hand it can be argued that since Jimmy was skating on a soppy terrain he posed a danger to the individuals using the pathway. Skating downwards in a sloppy terrain means that Jimmy is incapacitated to halt or slow down when someone crosses his path this means that this will either result to a collision or he will have to halt himself in order to avoid one. Jimmy skating activity therefore poses as a danger to the users of the path and himself. Considering that jimmy is using a modified skate as a hover board and the fact that he modified it himself means that the equipment is not in the right condition to work perfectly. This that the equipment poses further danger to Jimmy and the users of the pathway since it is not in the right condition to carry out the similar functionality as that of a hover board. From the case study we learn that Jimmy modified the hover board for himself this there disqualifies the company manufacturers from any injuries that might be caused by the hover board in capacity to function perfectly. In this case the manufacture frequently insist that the product users and buyers should not make any modification to the product especially which will affect is performance and functionality. Evidently in the case study Jimmy ignored these recommendations by the product manufacturers therefore posing danger to both himself and the path users. The skate board manufacturing company can therefore sue him for negligence ion the suggestion made concerning the product. Path users can also sue him for negligence on the basis that he pose a threat to their life due to his negligence on the recommendation made concerning the product. Overall, the application of these test factors from the Hojnowski vs. Vas Skate Park case to the facts favors the Jimmy being guilty of multiple account which include; skating in an undesignated skating area, Jimmy inconveniencing his neighbor or any individual while carrying out his skating activity and Jimmy being negligent by using a modified skate boards as a hover board whose functionality was in capacitated Conclusion Jimmy is therefore guilty in the three accounts revealed n the steps borrowed from the Hojnowski vs. Vas Skate Park case. First he is guilty of conducting skating activities in a area which is neither public or designated area for skating activities. In line with this the path way is not his property therefore the law prevents him from carrying out skating activities in such an area. Jimmy was also guilty of inconveniencing his neighbor while carrying out his skating activity. This was evident due to the fact that the neighbor complained of noise disturbance by Jimmy through his skating activity. On the other hand Jimmy was also guilty of posing a danger threat to the path users and himself as well since the terrain where he was skating on was not suitable for skating activities Jimmy is also guilty of being negligent in using a modified hover board whose functionality was in capacitated. In this case he ignored the company clear caution on not using modified equipment’s or modifying them as well. Jimmy by modifying a skateboard to a hover board defies these caution made by the manufacture company he is there guilty of negligence. References Herriman, Jade, Emma Partridge, and Mick Paddon. “Planning for Sustainability in NSW Local Government.” Commonwealth Journal of Local Governance 1, no. 0 (April 28, 2008). doi:10.5130/cjlg.v1i0.765. Jones, Robert. “Leading Change in Local Government: The Tension Between Evolutionary and Frame-Breaking Reform in NSW.” Australian Journal of Public Administration 61, no. 3 (September 2002): 38–53. doi:10.1111/1467-8500.00283. Ruming, Kristian. “Cutting Red Tape or Cutting Local Capacity? Responses by Local Government Planners to NSW Planning Changes.” Australian Planner 48, no. 1 (March 2011): 46–57. doi:10.1080/07293682.2011.530588. Untaru, Stevan. “Place Based Planning for NSW Local Government.” Australian Planner 39, no. 2 (January 2002): 83–89. doi:10.1080/07293682.2002.9982289. Read More