LAWS 101 (The University of Otago) Legal Opinion #1 (Cinder Ella) TO: Elisha Watson FROM: Kane Welsh

RE: Dim Diesel

Kane Welsh 2014

Issues: Is the Act in force? The Nitwits Act 2010 came into force on 1 January 2011, as stated in section 1(1). The events occurred on 29 December 2013. Therefore jurisdiction is established.

Is Dim Diesel a person? There is no evidence on the face of the statute to suggest that Dim Diesel is not a person.

Did Dim Diesel discharge a firearm or throw a stone or other missile? The word missile has multiple definitions which will undoubtedly cause dispute between the prosecution and the defence. The prosecution is likely to define the word missile as any physical object which can be thrown. This definition of missile encompasses the petrol, a physical object, which was thrown by Dim Diesel. The defence in response is likely to define missile along the lines of a weapon which is Page | 1 This legal opinion is published for study purposes only! It remains the intellectual property of Kane Welsh and under NO circumstances should you use it as your own!

LAWS 101 (The University of Otago) Legal Opinion #1 (Cinder Ella)

Kane Welsh 2014

self propelled or directed by a remote control. The defences definition of missile therefore does NOT include the petrol which was thrown by Dim Diesel. The prosecution will argue that the reason their definition of missile should be considered as correct is that, in terms of the effect on the community, any person would then be able to go around throwing objects with the intent to injure, annoy or frighten any person and would not be liable under section 4(1) of the Nitwits Act 2010 so long as the aforementioned person was throwing neither a stone nor a self propelled OR remote controlled weapon as the defence would put it. The prosecution would also argue that their definition is the more appropriate definition as in section 4(1) of the Nitwits Act 2010 it states a stone or other missile. The argument would then turn to the fact that the purpose parliament worded this subsection in such a way was to give stone as an example of what should and should not be considered as an other missile, namely other objects, similar to stones, which are able to be held and projected by hand. The defence would then argue that their definition of missile is the more appropriate in terms of the effect on the community as the prosecutions definition encompasses such a wide range of objects when talking about what a missile is. This broad definition would allow ridiculous charges to be filed amongst the community when someone throws a piece of paper at someone else, or when someone is playing sport and is then hit by a ball thrown by someone else. By using the defences definition of missile we are only regarding self propelling OR remote controlled" weapons, which would protect the country from the danger of actual weapons. The defence would also argue that their view on the definition of missile is Page | 2 This legal opinion is published for study purposes only! It remains the intellectual property of Kane Welsh and under NO circumstances should you use it as your own!

LAWS 101 (The University of Otago) Legal Opinion #1 (Cinder Ella)

Kane Welsh 2014

more appropriate due to the context in which missile is found. Section 4(1) of the Nitwits Act 2010 states anyone who discharges a firearm or throws a stone or other missile is liable. By stating discharges a firearm, it is a clear indication that parliaments purpose behind including a reference to a firearm is to give an example of what a missile is, and in this case, other missile would refer to any other weapon similar to a firearm. The judge would examine the two opposing arguments on the definition of missile and would presumably reach the conclusion to adopt the prosecutions definition in order to expand what might be classified as a missile to any physical object which can be held and thrown in the palm of your hand, not just a self propelled OR remote controlled weapon, weapons which we in New Zealand are lacking in numbers, in order to allow the Act to be realistically applied.

Did Dim Diesel throw the petrol on the embers so as to injure, annoy or frighten Ella Daze? The wording of section 4(1), so as to, implies intent and purpose to injure, annoy or frighten. As Dim Diesel was not trying to injure, annoy or frighten Ella Daze, the answer is no.

Is Ella Daze a person?

Page | 3 This legal opinion is published for study purposes only! It remains the intellectual property of Kane Welsh and under NO circumstances should you use it as your own!

LAWS 101 (The University of Otago) Legal Opinion #1 (Cinder Ella)

Kane Welsh 2014

There is no evidence on the face of the statute to suggest that Ella Daze is not a person. Would Dim Diesel be liable under Section 4(1) of the Nitwits Act 2010? Regardless of which definition of the word missile a judge chooses to accept as appropriate, in the case of Dim Diesel it is clear that it was not his intent to injure, annoy or frighten Ella Daze, therefore a judge would rule that Dim Diesel is not liable for conviction under Section 4(1) of the Nitwits Act 2010 in relation to the charge that the defendant threw a missile, namely petrol, that resulted in injury.

Page | 4 This legal opinion is published for study purposes only! It remains the intellectual property of Kane Welsh and under NO circumstances should you use it as your own!