Assessment 2: Elements Analysis Assessment
This assessment is worth 40% of your final mark.
ASSESSMENT TASK:
1. Using the method of analysis taught in Workshops 5 -7, write not more than 2000 words (+5% leeway) analysing the following facts within the context of the law outlined below.
2. DO NOT consider other law beyond the specific material referenced here:
Relevant Statutory provisions:
i. Sections 49-55 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (do not
consider any other part of the Act for the purposes of this assignment).
ii. Section 10 of the Legislation Act 2019
iii. any canons of construction or rules of statutory interpretation that you think may be relevant
Relevant Common Law decisions:
i. Case extract provided below
ii. Ali v New Zealand Law Society [2014] NZHC 1111
iii. New Zealand Law Society v Stanley [2020] NZSC 83
3. DO NOT research beyond the materials referenced at 2 above.
4. DO use the legal analysis methodology taught in workshops 5-7 to structure your answer. You can find a marking guide at the bottom of this document beneath the assessment supporting material.
5. DO Comply with the NZ LAW Style Guide (including Appendix 7 requirements).
6. DO submit a Microsoft Word version of your work through grammarly.com, carefully consider, and correct any relevant grammatical issues that this tool highlights.
ASSESSMENT SUBMISSION:
Late Submission of Work/Penalties
The penalty for lateness is 5 marks for each day (or part of day thereof) in which the assessment is submitted late. For the avoidance of doubt, penalties are applied on a calendar basis (not a 24-hour basis).
Please read the assignment submission process information on the LAW School website for examples of how late penalties are applied.
Word Limits/Penalties
7. All words in your assignment including footnotes, headings, and titles
are included in the 2000 word limit. You have a 5% leeway with the word limit. This means you have an absolute limit of 2100 words. Penalties apply for overlength work. Information on what is included in the word count and how penalties are applied can be found here
You must submit your essay in Microsoft word format only.
ASSESSMENT FACTS
Reggie, 28 has graduated from Auckland School of Legal Studies with an LLB degree and s/he has also just completed Law Professionals. Reggie now has all the qualifications required for admission to practice as a barrister and solicitor of the High Court of New Zealand. Reggie is seeking admission to practice under section 49(2)
Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (‘LCA’). S/he has now filed with the Registrar of the High Court, Auckland the following documents:
i. ‘Originating application’ signed by counsel moving Reggie’s admission
ii. ‘Affidavit in support’ sworn by Reggie
iii. ‘Completion Certificate’ issued by the Council NZ Council of Legal Education under s50 LCA (‘A’)
iv. ‘Certificate of Character’ issued under s51 LCA by the New Zealand Law Society (‘B’)
v. Admission fee receipt (‘C’)
Before applying to the NZLS for the Certificate of Character, Reggie carefully read sections 49(2), 52, and 55 LCA. S/he then submitted an application to the NZLS seeking that it issue to him/her the required Certificate of Character. In the NZLS application Reggie was required to disclose all kinds of personal details and
information and also s/he had to provide references from past employers. It was a complicated and time-consuming process which s/he found to be very challenging.
One of the reasons why Reggie found the NZLS application process very challenging is because s/he has had some ‘troubles’ in the past. S/he decided to keep these troubles private and not to disclose them – mostly because s/he believes them to be minor, firmly in her past, and irrelevant to both the way s/he is today and the way s/he will be in his/her future career. In fact, Reggie has never told friends, family, flatmates, nor any past employers about any of these past ‘troubles’ – and s/he certainly does
not intend to start now.
After benefiting from three years of counselling provided by the University’s health and counselling services, Reggie firmly believes that one should always live in the present, that you learn from your mistakes, and that today is the first day of the rest of your life.
Having studied law, Reggie also believes in second chances and that, since s/he has paid her ‘debt’ to society, s/he can start afresh with a clean slate knowing that today s/he is a very different person from the person s/he once was.
Reggie’s past ‘troubles’ include:
1. When s/he was 18, Reggie was caught with a stolen watch valued at over $500.00 which s/he admitted s/he had taken from a jewellery shop where s/he worked part time as a cleaner. Reggie went through the court system and was discharged without conviction.
2. When s/he was 22, Reggie was driving through Newmarket one afternoon when a cyclist riding in front of him/her unexpectedly changed lanes from left to right, cutting right across in front of Reggie’s car clipping the left front bumper. The cyclist maintained that he had clearly indicated his intention by hand signals that he was going to make the turn. Reggie later testified on oath that he did not. The cyclist caught his foot in his wheel spokes, tumbled off his bike, and broke his collarbone. Reggie was charged with, and later convicted of, careless driving causing injury. The judge made a point of saying that she firmly rejected Reggie’s evidence at trial as being patently untruthful and, since this was Reggie’s second driving offence conviction for careless use within 12 months, s/he was disqualified from driving for one year and
fined $1500.00.
3. At 24, Reggie started an LLB degree at Auckland School of Legal Studies. In Part III, s/he was one of several students found by the University’s Disciplinary Committee, to have breached academic integrity rules on a Land Law essay after s/he copied parts of an essay posted online by a student group, ‘Students Helping Students’. The University’s Disciplinary Committee imposed on Reggie the most serious penalty possible because s/he had previously been found by the School to have breached academic integrity standards. Reggie’s first breach was for using materials provided by a tutor in a special tutorial programme run by volunteer staff at the School. The second breach was for copying direct sentences from a journal article into a Public
Law research essay without proper quotes nor citation and the third breach was for submitting an essay as his/her own which was later flagged as likely to have been generated through a cheating platform using A.I.(artificial intelligence). In its report the Committee noted Reggie’s disturbing pattern of academic misconduct continuing throughout law school.
Discuss whether and why/why not Reggie should have disclosed in her
application to the NZLS any/all of these past ‘troubles’.
ASSESSMENT SUPPORTING MATERIAL
A. Legislation/Statutory provisions
i. Sections 49-55 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (do not
consider any other part of the Act for the purposes of this assignment).
ii. Section 10 of the Legislation Act 2019 (replaces s.5 Interpretation Act 1999)
iii. any canons of construction or rules of statutory interpretation that you think may be relevant
B. Common Law decisions
i. Case extract provided below
ii. Ali v New Zealand Law Society [2014] NZHC 1111
iii. New Zealand Law Society v Stanley [2020] NZSC 83
C. Case Extract
Commerce Commission v Fonterra Co-Operative Group Ltd [2007] NZSC 36, 3 NZLR 767[22] It is necessary to bear in mind that s5 of the Interpretation Act 1999 makes text and purpose the key drivers of statutory interpretation. The meaning of an enactment must be ascertained from its text and in light of its purpose. Even if the meaning of the text may appear plain in isolation of purpose, that meaning should always be cross-
checked against purpose in order to observe the dual requirements of s 5. In determining purpose, the Court must obviously have regard to both the immediate and the general legislative context. Of relevance too may be the social, commercial or other objective of the enactment. (footnotes removed)
[24] Where, as here, the meaning is not clear on the face of the legislation, the Court will regard context and purpose as essential guides to meaning.
