Multiple Choice
Section 2 of the Curfew and Civil Disorder Act 1998 states that: 'Under this Act 'lawful excuse' shall be limited to matters of emergency, public concern or other essential purpose.'
The Hansard reports reveal that, in relation to the Act, the Home Secretary, in response to a question in Parliament about the meaning of 'shall be limited to matters of urgency, public concern or other essential purpose' said: 'Clause 2 is very straightforward. The use of the word urgency is to denote a matter in need of immediate action or attention: a situation of necessity.'
How, and when, can counsel use the statement from Hansard in his/her argument regarding the meaning of the word 'emergency' contained in section 2 of the Act?
A) The statement can never be used because the Home Secretary is discussing the word 'urgency', which has been changed to 'emergency' during the passage of the bill through Parliament.
B) The statement can be used in argument as long as the rules in Pepper v Hart are satisfied.
C) The statement can only used by counsel for the defence because section 2 can only be read eiusdem generis.
D) The Home Secretary is talking in Parliament in answer to a question rather than reading out the explanatory notes accompanying the bill; consequently, the statement cannot be used.
Correct Answer:

Verified
Correct Answer:
Verified
Q5: Match each Latin maxim to its meaning.<br>-In
Q6: The case of Davis v Johnson demonstrates
Q7: What is the problem with the 'rules
Q8: Section 1 of the Countryside Act states
Q9: Match each rule of interpretation with its
Q11: Match each Latin maxim to its meaning.<br>-Eiusdem
Q12: Match each rule of interpretation with its
Q13: When can a statute be read in
Q14: Which of the following is the correct
Q15: Which of the following statements apply to