Busy. Please wait.
or

show password
Forgot Password?

Don't have an account?  Sign up 
or

Username is available taken
show password

why


Make sure to remember your password. If you forget it there is no way for StudyStack to send you a reset link. You would need to create a new account.
We do not share your email address with others. It is only used to allow you to reset your password. For details read our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.


Already a StudyStack user? Log In

Reset Password
Enter the associated with your account, and we'll email you a link to reset your password.

Remove ads
Don't know
Know
remaining cards
Save
0:01
To flip the current card, click it or press the Spacebar key.  To move the current card to one of the three colored boxes, click on the box.  You may also press the UP ARROW key to move the card to the "Know" box, the DOWN ARROW key to move the card to the "Don't know" box, or the RIGHT ARROW key to move the card to the Remaining box.  You may also click on the card displayed in any of the three boxes to bring that card back to the center.

Pass complete!

"Know" box contains:
Time elapsed:
Retries:
restart all cards




share
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.

  Normal Size     Small Size show me how

Cases

Recap of the cases up to now

QuestionAnswer
What is Whitley v Chappell an example of The literal rule
give a brief overview of Whitley v Chappell D was charged under a section that made it an offence to "impersonate anybody entitled to vote" The person he had impersonated was dead. Therefor the courts found him not guilty as in literal terms the other person wasn't entitled to vote
What happened with Paul chambers Charged under terrorism laws for posting on social media he was going to blow an airport " sky high " ( This can be connected with conviction / sentence appeals )
Why could the case Fisher v Bell show an example of the literal rule to be an absurdity D was not charged under the restriction of offensive weapons act 1957. Because in literal terms the knives were an "invitation to treat" not a offer to sell he was found not guilty despite the act trying to prevent just this sort of behavior
Created by: cwarburton