Case Study

Having Trouble Meeting Your Deadline?

Get your assignment on Case Study  completed on time. avoid delay and – ORDER NOW

Do my paper

CASE
STUDY

Following
an outbreak of “swine flu” in Oxfordshire in October 2016,
Denmark has banned all “imports of pork” from the UK to Denmark.
Although the disease is highly contagious between humans it cannot be
contracted from pigs, or from eating pork. The Danish embargo has
prompted angry scenes in the House of Commons, encouraging the UK
Government to introduce the (fictitious) Meat Imports Retaliation
(Denmark) Act 2016, (MIRDA 2016). The MIRDA, brought into effect on
the 30th November 2016, entitles the Secretary of State for
“Environment, Food and Rural Affairs” to do “as he sees fit”
in order to meet the objectives of the legislation. In February 2017,
the Secretary of State passed the (fictitious) Meat Imports
Regulations, banning “the import and export of all meat products
between the UK and Denmark”. George has a large farm near Dover,
in Kent, and exports live pigs to Denmark at least once a fortnight.
As there has been no recorded incidence of swine flu in Kent, the UK
Government has not introduced a ban on the movement of pigs in the
southern counties of England, (although it has done so in the West).
Consequently George has arranged to continue exporting his pigs to
Denmark for the next six months, as scheduled. On the 1st March, an
animal rights group, who object to the export of live animals for
slaughter, blocked the gangway to a boat belonging to Zippy Exports
Ltd, preventing George’s pigs from being loaded for transit to
Denmark. The police were called but Inspector Bungle, whose wife is
the Director of the animal rights group concerned, refused to act
against the protesters. Instead he arrested George for committing an
offence under MIRDA 2016 and insisted that the pigs were returned to
the farm. George was released from the police station within 24
hours but has since been served with a summons stating that he is
being prosecuted by Dover District Council for attempting to export
meat products in breach of the “2017 Meat Regulations”. George
has also received a letter from Rainbow Lawyers4U, acting on behalf
of Zippy Exports Ltd, who are claiming payment in accordance with the
terms of their contract for transporting the pigs, including any
potential loss of earnings from that same contract over the next six
months. Advise George as to the following. Each question is
worth equal marks. (NB: 200 WORDS PER QUESTION)

1)
The difference between the legal status of the Meat Imports
Retaliation (Denmark) Act 2016 and the Meat Imports Regulations 2017
and whether or not George is likely to be in breach of either one of
them. Your answer should include an evaluation of any relevant
constitutional principles and rules of statutory interpretation that
are likely to affect any judicial decision making.
2) The distinction
between an appeal and an application for judicial review and how
either of these options might apply to George’s case if he is
convicted at the Magistrates Court.
3) The likelihood of Zippy Exports succeeding in
any action brought against George for breach of contract.