- The legal issue is the determination of residence and the meaning of the word dwelling as used
in the act and how it affects the two properties of Mr. Dole. Mr. Frank Dole for the purposes of
these appeal claims categorically that his residence is one and the same though in different sites
or location. The word Claimant in this case refers also to Mr. Dole. It’s also defined under the
jobseekers act of 1995 as a person who is claiming the allowance as a jobseeker. The main and
statutory definition of dwelling as defined in regulation 1(3) of the jobseekers act of 1995 means
the dwelling place as occupied by the gardens, the garage or any building mostly used as his
home and which is impractical or is utterly unreasonable for the owner to dispose of separately.
- Mr. Dole’s position is precarious in that his dwelling place is in two different locations. He
occupies one house with his eight younger children together with his wife while the other house
is occupied by his other four senior children, who are either attending a college or working in
Manchester. It would be impractical for the claimant to dispose of the property while his children
are still depending on him for maintenance. It’s also practical that his children will not depend on
him forever. After his children are fully grown, they may move out of the family unit and be
independent. This argument in this instance is not material enough to persuade the judge but it’s
- Under paragraph 1(1) of the same act schedule 2, it entitles the claimant to housing costs
provided those costs are liable to meet the expenses of a dwelling used as a home for himself and
his family. The claimant’s home is regarded as the dwelling occupied by him and family in Great
Britain or otherwise. The act further states that the costs will be approved if they are relating to
two dwelling places if they are made regarding the movement to a second dwelling due to fear or
violence to himself or a member of his family and that its reasonable that the other dwelling
place should also be paid. The costs will also apply if the claimant is a member of a polygamous
marriage or if one of the partners is a full time student or is in any training that makes it
unavoidable to occupy less than two separate dwellings and that its fair and reasonable that costs
of both dwelling be met. If a person has moved out to a separate location for a period not more
than four benefit weeks and there’s unavoidable need to make the two payments and subject to
and not including where subparagraph(v) applies.
4.Other allied provisions, under the enabling statute which the income support requirements and
regulations of 1987 is based also defines dwelling as any accommodation or residential location
whether its housed in a large building or houses separate and self contained structures or
Which technique(s) of statutory interpretation, Presumptions and/or ‘rules of language did ward
L.J. employ in the case? Evidence your answer by reference to relevant dicta in the case.
The decision or the judgment was made following the literal rule of statute interpretation. The
decision was based on the literal meaning of the provisions of the act. The definition of the word
dwelling was in dispute. According to the judgment the word dwelling was expressively taken to
mean exactly as it was intended that is, a home which can be more than one unit of
accommodation and therefore qualify for the capital disregard under the provisions of the income
support and also the provisions of the job seekers allowance.
The judgment also interpreted the provisions of the job seekers allowance act that defined
further the meaning of a dwelling place, as explained by the oxford dictionary to mean a place of
abode, where as a dwelling house is a house that’s a place of residence as differentiated from a
business premises, an office or even a warehouse.
- Theft is a criminal offence. The constitutional provisions governing the criminal procedure are
found in Amendments IV, V, VI and VII in the constitution of the United States of America.
The sixth amendment covers all the procedures required at the trial and it provides the
constitutional right of the accused person to a speedy and public trial, impartial jury and district.
The criminal prosecutions begin with the arrest of the accused referred to as a suspect until the
conclusion of the case. The defendant is taken to the nearest police station and booked, during
which his photos and fingerprints and the arrest is formally entered in the police books or log.
He’s given a chance to make a call and surrenders all his possessions including his shoe laces,
belt and wallet. He awaits presentation before a magistrate while inside the cell as the police
prepare the complaints against him. The court will review the charge sheet and if there’s a
probable cause as in the case of Brian he will be held in the cells for a period not exceeding
twenty four hours before being charged by the magistrate who will inform him of his rights to
remain silent or have a state counsel. The bail is then set and the trial commences once the jury
has been formed. The right to have a jury trial is normally dependent on the amount of money
involved or at issue. If the case is tied to an amount, such as $10,000, the case may be restricted
to trial by a judge. However in federal court, such as the case of Brian, all the parties have the
inherent constitutional right to a jury trial. Brian and the plaintiff are entitled by law to be given
opportunity to screen all jurors to eliminate any form of bias. (Twining and Miers, 1999)
- Brian will be eligible to appeal against the custodial sentence as the facts obtained can be
evidence of proof that bias existed in the selection and composition of the jury. However Brian
will have to prove that the prison warder volunteered information that actually influenced the
mind of the juror in question and the eventual decision of the entire jury. When appealing to the
appellate court, it’s the duty of Brian to convince the court that the information passed on about
him to the jury actually influenced its decision. Burford v. United States (2001).Mr. Brian will be
entitled to an attorney provided for by the state. Under the sixth Amendment, the defense
attorney may claim that his client was denied a fair trial due to unfair composition of the jury.
- He will appeal to the US court of appeal for redress of his constitutional right to have a free
and fair trial before the court as the proof and evidence of bias against him by members of the
jury constituted a breach of his constitutional right to a fair trial.
His claim for compensation does not count as the injuries were sustained while committing a
crime besides they may also fall under the doctrine of Volenti non fit injuria. That’s voluntary
assumption of risk. He knew the danger involved when he was climbing the fence and accessing
the compound illegally. The notice was meant for the householders invited guests not intruders.
- To commense civil proceedings due to the injuries sustained during the burglary, Mr. Brian
will have to report the injuries together with a medical report to the police station.
- Mr. Brian can work out an agreement with the householder to withdraw the evidence against
him and plead with the court to drop the criminal charges against him.
- It would be absurd to pay and compensate an intruder for injuries sustained while committing
a criminal act.
Adams, N., Brownsword, R. (1999) Understanding Law. Sweet & Maxwell, 2nd ed
Adams, N., Brownsword, R., (2000) Understanding Contract law. Sweet & Maxwell, 3rd Ed,
Bradney, A., Cownie, F., Masson, J, Neal, A., Newell, D. (1995) How to Study Law. Sweet &
Goode, R. (1995) Commercial Law. Penguin Books, 2nd Ed
Morrison, W., Geary, A., and Malleson, K. (2004) Common Law and Reasoning & Institutions.
London. University of London.
Twining, W., Miers, D, (1999) How to do Things with Rules .Butterworths. 4th ed,