Assessment 2: Elements Analysis Assessment
This assessment is worth 40% of your final mark.

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, carefully consider, and correct any relevant grammatical issues that this tool highlights.


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. 

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’.

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.

All papers are written by ENL (US, UK, AUSTRALIA) writers with vast experience in the field. We perform a quality assessment on all orders before submitting them.

Do you have an urgent order?  We have more than enough writers who will ensure that your order is delivered on time. 

We provide plagiarism reports for all our custom written papers. All papers are written from scratch.

24/7 Customer Support

Contact us anytime, any day, via any means if you need any help. You can use the Live Chat, email, or our provided phone number anytime.

We will not disclose the nature of our services or any information you provide to a third party.

Assignment Help Services
Money-Back Guarantee

Get your money back if your paper is not delivered on time or if your instructions are not followed.

We Guarantee the Best Grades
Assignment Help Services