|
Joe Ovadia suggests three possible defences to the charge of breaching s 4 of the Injuries in Sports Act .
- Joe says he acted instinctively and did not intend to injure Eric.
- Joe suggests that the injury to Eric was not an injury within the meaning of the Act.
- Joe says that a prosecution under s 4 cannot be brought if disciplinary action has already been taken by the sporting authority.
These suggested defences raise questions about what the provisions in the Act truly mean. This type of question is called an interpretation question. They are questions about the meaning of relevant legislation.
To answer interpretation questions, a judge would apply the established rules of statutory interpretation. These rules are explained in the next section of this module. Work through the rules carefully, thinking about Joe Ovadia's case as you go. In the last part of the module, you will need to apply these rules to resolve the case study.
|