Law103 – L03 Thursday 27th October 2016

Reading and Noting Cases

Reading for next lecture

M. O’Sullivan “National Hunan Rights Institutions Effectively Protecting Human Rights?” (2000) 25/5

Alternative Law Journal 236

R. Murray National Human Rights Institutions: Criteria and factor for assessing their effectiveness (2007)
25/5 Neth Q. Human Rights 189

Headnote –

Summary of the case, provides account of history, statement under “held” of key rules

- May be inaccurate
- No legal weight

Concurring and dissenting judgments

Judges judgments

- Dissenting judgment – advances learning of the law

Break up the reading

Give an account of the cause of action that started the case

The history of the case, what happens earlier in the court

Start to go through the arguments in the lower court

Give reasoning about the lawyers’ argument

Cases that lead this area

Eventually an authoritive statement about what the court thinks

Precision, accuracy and repeated targeted reading

Case note headings to test comprehensive understanding

What to look for in Appellant cases?

How does the House of Lords approach discrimation policy in the last twenty years

Question of law/issues

What they are arguing about?

Facts
Laws applicable to in the case

- What law governs this – binding cases/statutes

Rules laid down

Reasoning and supporting argument

- Interpretation/use of prior cases/statutes

- Other arguments

How did the court get to the rule laid down?

Example 1

What was the main question/s that the HL addressed in Mandla v Lee?

Was Mandla discriminated against unlawfully? – Not the main question

- Answer of this depends on more precise questions,

What is the meaning of racial discrimination? - Too broad

What is the meaning of “racial group?”

What is the meaning of ethnic origins? – the only way they would be defined as a racial group, was
through being defined through ethnic origins.

Are Sikhs a racial group? Mandla v Lee answers this question and it can no longer be argued that
the Sikhs are not a racial group

Crown Suppliers PSA Ltd v Dawkins 1993 ICR 517 CA

Rastafarian – required to cut

No long held history, was not sufficient to constitute as a long held history – date back only 30s

Whether their history would be accepted as a racial group, in reference to the ethnic origins

1. Test laid down in Mandla v Lee

- By which we can recognise if a group can be defined through ethnic origins

2. Eliminated the literal meaning of “can”

Can comply consistently with customs and practices
A smaller proportion of Rastafarian can comply with this than a larger

Procedural Background

County Court – Sikhs were not a racial group

Court of Appeal – Agreed

Appealed to the House of Lords -

Applicable Legislation

Indirect Racial discrimination

Court reached the decision that defendant’s justification was about ethnic origins and was not permissible,
justification had to be irrespective of race, colour… not about these

iii) Prevents anyone for bringing a claim unless the qualify, is eligible

It has to be detrimental to the party that brings the claim

Racial group

Material Facts
In order to comply as a racial group they require an ethnic origin – history of the Sikhs

Respondent was arguing on a narrow view of racial group

Rules laid down in the Case

1. Sikhs were a racial group
2. The meaning of Ethnic Origins
3. The meaning of “Can comply”
4. The justifiability of the no-turban rule
- Clarifies that the justification has to be without reference to race or orgin

Support Argument
How did the court get to the judgment?

What did Parliament intend?

“Ethnic origins”

Can comply

Physical possibility – literal meaning

Wider meaning

Full Case Note Headings

Title and Citation

- Top of your case note

- Identify the level of the court which the case was heard

Mandla v Lee [1983] 1 All ER 1062 [HL]

Parties

- Names in the title and a reminder who brought the action and who is appealing the decision
 Mandla – claimant/appellant
Lee – Defendant/respondent

Procedual History
AN account of how it came to be and where it is now
Identify cause of action/ charge
Outcome of earlier hearings
- NO arguments or facts

Material Facts

- Essential to decision
- If the fact was different would the outcome be different

Questions of Law/ Issues – Write them as questions

Ensure that they are questions of law

Answerable by reference to legal rules

Questions of fact are answerable by evidence

Appellant’s/Losing Argument

- Outline main points of the appellant/losing arguments

Decision of the Court

- Record the outcome of the case

Appeal Allowed/Dismissed
Conviction Affirmed/quashed

Rules of Law
- Proposition of law for which that case is said to authority

Supporting Argument

- Argument of the court

- Main reasoning
- How did they get to conclusion?
- What is there reasoning, what use have they made of cases

*May just follow a prior case, principle

* Should be the longest ideally

Ratio of the Case

- Remains unclear until it is identify in a later case

Overrule – is the judgment of another case

Reversed – decision of the same case in an earlier court