{"id":38,"date":"2003-12-13T11:56:26","date_gmt":"2003-12-13T11:56:26","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2003-12-13T11:56:26","modified_gmt":"2003-12-13T11:56:26","slug":"r-v-bentham-2003-ca-statutory-interpretation-the-purposive-approach","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/?p=38","title":{"rendered":"R v Bentham (2003) CA Statutory Interpretation &#8211; the Purposive Approach"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><font face=\"Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif\"><strong>[Statutory Interpretation &#8211; the Purposive Approach]<\/strong><br \/>D robbed&nbsp;A, whom he believed owed him money. A was still in bed. The defendant pointed his finger, covered by his jacket at A and demanded &#8220;every penny in the house&#8221;.&nbsp; A believed his fingers were a gun.<\/font><\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<p><font face=\"Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif\"><strong>Held<\/strong>:&nbsp;A purposive approach had to be adopted.&nbsp;&nbsp;Section 17 of the Firearms Act 1968&nbsp;was clearly designed to protect the victim confronted with what he thought was a firearm. It did not matter whether it was a plastic gun or a biro or simply anorak material stiffened by a figure. If it had the appearance of a firearm the jury were entitled to find the offence made out.&nbsp;<\/font><\/p>\n<p><\/p>\n<p><strong><font face=\"Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif\">Guilty<\/font><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>[Statutory Interpretation &#8211; the Purposive Approach]D robbed&nbsp;A, whom he believed owed him money. A was still in bed. The defendant pointed his finger, covered by his jacket at A and demanded &#8220;every penny in the house&#8221;.&nbsp; A believed his fingers were a gun. Held:&nbsp;A purposive approach had to be adopted.&nbsp;&nbsp;Section 17 of the Firearms Act [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-38","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=38"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=38"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=38"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.sixthform.info\/lawblog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=38"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}