Legislation Section 444 (1)
Legislation Section 444(1) of the Education Act 1996 provides: (1) If a child of compulsory school age who is a registered pupil at a school fails to attend regularly at the school, his parent is guilty of an offence.
Break down the legislation and identify the issue word (using ticks, crosses and question-marks) [30 marks]
If a child ✓
Of a compulsory school age ✓
Who is a registered pupil ✓
At a school ✓
Fails to attend ✓
Regularly ?
At the school ✓
[His parent is guilty of an offence]
Identify what gives rise to the doubt (ie, what is it about the facts that makes it unclear if the legislation has been satisfied?) [10 marks]
Issue Word: ‘Regularly’.
‘Regularly’ is an ambiguous term because it assumes a level of continuity …show more content…
when completing an action, although it does not specify the conditions for an action to be defined as such. Mary’s attendance was consistent over a long period of time, but it is unclear if her 7 day absence meant that she failed to attend ‘regularly’. It is unclear if the legislation has been satisfied because there is uncertainty around what the interpretation of the word is.
The ordinary usage of the word ‘regularly’ also gives rise to the doubt. We would use ‘regularly’ to describe something that occurs a lot, although it leaves room for it to not occur without causing issue. ‘Regularly’ would not be considered a definitive term, or a term that describes an action that occurs all the time. For example, it could be stated that; ‘I regularly get a coffee in the morning’, or ‘I regularly catch the bus’, these would imply that the action occurs frequently and in a pattern, but does not happen everyday. It is unclear if the ordinary usage of ‘regularly’ would apply within this case, or if an opposing definition or interpretation of the word is relevant, hence, the ambiguity.
Identify what each party would argue about the meaning of the word in issue [10 marks] The defendant would argue that for an action to happen ‘regularly’ it must occur consistently over a long period of time, in a pattern, while leaving room for the action to not occur in intervals. Mary had a pattern of attendance, throughout the school year, although did not attend everyday, due to sickness and a 7 day holiday. Her attendance occurred ‘regularly’ because it was frequent with only occasional absences.
The prosecution would argue that for an action to happen ‘regularly’ it must occur consistently over a period of time, in a definite, structured pattern. Any absence from school will break the pattern of attendance, resulting in the pupil failing to attend ‘regularly’. For example, the pattern of Mary’s attendance was disrupted by a 7 day holiday and consequently could no longer be defined as occurring ‘regularly’.
Write an issue statement [20 marks]
For someone to attend ‘regularly’ must they attend over a period of time, in a definite pattern with no unauthorised intervals? (Prosecution. Narrow Limb)
Or is it sufficient that they attend over a period of time, in a pattern, with flexible intervals in between? (Defendant. Wide Limb)
Resolve the issue using the dictionary; [30 marks] - state the relevant definition [5 marks]; - make arguments for the defendant and the prosecution [20 marks]; - evaluate which side has the stronger argument [5 marks]
Relevant Definition:
‘adj. 1 arranged in a constant or definite pattern, especially with the same space between individual instances. 2 recurring at short uniform intervals: a regular monthly check. □ done or happening frequently. □ doing the same thing often or at uniform intervals: regular worshippers.’
Defendant argument -
The first part of the definition references a ‘definite pattern’ and there being space between ‘individual instances’, this suggests that an action has to be a frequent occurrence. For an action to occur ‘regularly’ it must be ‘constant’, but the reference to the space between ‘individual instances’ suggests there is allowance for the action to not occur without causing offence or a disruption in its regularity. This benefits the defendants argument and a wide interpretation of the word because it states the flexibility of the term ‘regularly’, especially due to the ‘individual instances’ between occurrences.
Prosecution argument -
The idea of a ‘definite pattern’ is able to apply to the prosecution's argument as it suggests an action has to occur in a definitive manner.
It implies that an action must be set and structured, as well as occurring consistently. The idea of an action being ‘definite’ leaves little room for it to not occur, due to the conclusiveness of the term. The term ‘define pattern’ is specific and is able to support the prosecution's interpretation of the word because of the explicit nature of the definition. While the dictionary definition references the space between ‘individual instances’, it is seen to be an extension of the predominant definition. The prosecution is able to argue this is not as relevant as the ‘constant’ or ‘definite pattern’ in the definition, in turn emphasising their interpretation of the word. The use of the word ‘definite’ is inherently decisive, making other definitions secondary and of a lesser influence within the …show more content…
sentence.
Defendant argument -
The second part of the definition specifically states the need for an action to be ‘recurring’ and existing between ‘uniform intervals’. This suggests an action is considered to be ‘regularly’ when it happens a lot, but there are occasions when it does not happen. This part of the definition supports the idea that there exists a level of flexibility in the frequency of an action when describing it as occurring ‘regularly’. The definition specifically states the allowance for an action to not occur in intervals, when describing it as ‘regularly’. The wide limb is supported by the definition, because the defence’s argument is based on ‘regularly’ allowing for breaks from the action in question.
Prosecution argument -
The prosecution's argument is able to use the definition of ‘done or happening frequently’.
This suggests when an action is not completed ‘frequently’, it is no longer able to be defined as occurring ‘regularly’. This definition limits what it means for something to occur ‘regularly’, which is what the prosecution aims to argue. The other definitions within the second part of the dictionary are unable to be applied to the prosecution’s argument. This is because it references the allowance for a break or a ‘uniform interval’ and implies a level of flexibility, essentially widening the definition, instead of narrowing
it.
Evaluation of arguments -
The first part of the dictionary definition strengthens the prosecution’s argument. The reference to a ‘definite pattern’ emphasises the argument based on a strict interpretation of ‘regularly’. But, the prosecution's argument is not strong enough as to exclude the defendant’s. Ultimately, the defendant’s argument is stronger. The definition consistently refers to ‘regularly’ including intervals, or breaks from the action and for it to occur frequently. The definition is broad and does not specifically limit the term ‘regularly’. The prosecution’s argument is only seen through select parts of the definition, as opposed to the defendant’s argument which is able to be seen throughout. This is evident through the idea of a ‘constant or definite pattern’ and ‘uniform’ intervals which support a wide interpretation of ‘regularly’.
Break down the legislation and identify the issue word (using ticks, crosses and question-marks) [30 marks]
If a child ✓
Of a compulsory school age ✓
Who is a registered pupil ✓
At a school ✓
Fails to attend ✓
Regularly ?
At the school ✓
[His parent is guilty of an offence]
Identify what gives rise to the doubt (ie, what is it about the facts that makes it unclear if the legislation has been satisfied?) [10 marks]
Issue Word: ‘Regularly’.
‘Regularly’ is an ambiguous term because it assumes a level of continuity …show more content…
when completing an action, although it does not specify the conditions for an action to be defined as such. Mary’s attendance was consistent over a long period of time, but it is unclear if her 7 day absence meant that she failed to attend ‘regularly’. It is unclear if the legislation has been satisfied because there is uncertainty around what the interpretation of the word is.
The ordinary usage of the word ‘regularly’ also gives rise to the doubt. We would use ‘regularly’ to describe something that occurs a lot, although it leaves room for it to not occur without causing issue. ‘Regularly’ would not be considered a definitive term, or a term that describes an action that occurs all the time. For example, it could be stated that; ‘I regularly get a coffee in the morning’, or ‘I regularly catch the bus’, these would imply that the action occurs frequently and in a pattern, but does not happen everyday. It is unclear if the ordinary usage of ‘regularly’ would apply within this case, or if an opposing definition or interpretation of the word is relevant, hence, the ambiguity.
Identify what each party would argue about the meaning of the word in issue [10 marks] The defendant would argue that for an action to happen ‘regularly’ it must occur consistently over a long period of time, in a pattern, while leaving room for the action to not occur in intervals. Mary had a pattern of attendance, throughout the school year, although did not attend everyday, due to sickness and a 7 day holiday. Her attendance occurred ‘regularly’ because it was frequent with only occasional absences.
The prosecution would argue that for an action to happen ‘regularly’ it must occur consistently over a period of time, in a definite, structured pattern. Any absence from school will break the pattern of attendance, resulting in the pupil failing to attend ‘regularly’. For example, the pattern of Mary’s attendance was disrupted by a 7 day holiday and consequently could no longer be defined as occurring ‘regularly’.
Write an issue statement [20 marks]
For someone to attend ‘regularly’ must they attend over a period of time, in a definite pattern with no unauthorised intervals? (Prosecution. Narrow Limb)
Or is it sufficient that they attend over a period of time, in a pattern, with flexible intervals in between? (Defendant. Wide Limb)
Resolve the issue using the dictionary; [30 marks] - state the relevant definition [5 marks]; - make arguments for the defendant and the prosecution [20 marks]; - evaluate which side has the stronger argument [5 marks]
Relevant Definition:
‘adj. 1 arranged in a constant or definite pattern, especially with the same space between individual instances. 2 recurring at short uniform intervals: a regular monthly check. □ done or happening frequently. □ doing the same thing often or at uniform intervals: regular worshippers.’
Defendant argument -
The first part of the definition references a ‘definite pattern’ and there being space between ‘individual instances’, this suggests that an action has to be a frequent occurrence. For an action to occur ‘regularly’ it must be ‘constant’, but the reference to the space between ‘individual instances’ suggests there is allowance for the action to not occur without causing offence or a disruption in its regularity. This benefits the defendants argument and a wide interpretation of the word because it states the flexibility of the term ‘regularly’, especially due to the ‘individual instances’ between occurrences.
Prosecution argument -
The idea of a ‘definite pattern’ is able to apply to the prosecution's argument as it suggests an action has to occur in a definitive manner.
It implies that an action must be set and structured, as well as occurring consistently. The idea of an action being ‘definite’ leaves little room for it to not occur, due to the conclusiveness of the term. The term ‘define pattern’ is specific and is able to support the prosecution's interpretation of the word because of the explicit nature of the definition. While the dictionary definition references the space between ‘individual instances’, it is seen to be an extension of the predominant definition. The prosecution is able to argue this is not as relevant as the ‘constant’ or ‘definite pattern’ in the definition, in turn emphasising their interpretation of the word. The use of the word ‘definite’ is inherently decisive, making other definitions secondary and of a lesser influence within the …show more content…
sentence.
Defendant argument -
The second part of the definition specifically states the need for an action to be ‘recurring’ and existing between ‘uniform intervals’. This suggests an action is considered to be ‘regularly’ when it happens a lot, but there are occasions when it does not happen. This part of the definition supports the idea that there exists a level of flexibility in the frequency of an action when describing it as occurring ‘regularly’. The definition specifically states the allowance for an action to not occur in intervals, when describing it as ‘regularly’. The wide limb is supported by the definition, because the defence’s argument is based on ‘regularly’ allowing for breaks from the action in question.
Prosecution argument -
The prosecution's argument is able to use the definition of ‘done or happening frequently’.
This suggests when an action is not completed ‘frequently’, it is no longer able to be defined as occurring ‘regularly’. This definition limits what it means for something to occur ‘regularly’, which is what the prosecution aims to argue. The other definitions within the second part of the dictionary are unable to be applied to the prosecution’s argument. This is because it references the allowance for a break or a ‘uniform interval’ and implies a level of flexibility, essentially widening the definition, instead of narrowing
it.
Evaluation of arguments -
The first part of the dictionary definition strengthens the prosecution’s argument. The reference to a ‘definite pattern’ emphasises the argument based on a strict interpretation of ‘regularly’. But, the prosecution's argument is not strong enough as to exclude the defendant’s. Ultimately, the defendant’s argument is stronger. The definition consistently refers to ‘regularly’ including intervals, or breaks from the action and for it to occur frequently. The definition is broad and does not specifically limit the term ‘regularly’. The prosecution’s argument is only seen through select parts of the definition, as opposed to the defendant’s argument which is able to be seen throughout. This is evident through the idea of a ‘constant or definite pattern’ and ‘uniform’ intervals which support a wide interpretation of ‘regularly’.