ratio (1 Viewer)

[Angel45]

Say u had case whether the applicatant was applying for I dunno, permission to stop kids eating icecream for dinner every night and the thing was, that'd be ruled fine so long as they could prove it's shown to be unhealthy:

okay so the judge decides to dismiss the application right...icecream every night for the kiddies!

is the ratio of the case why they can eat ice-cream every night- ie. the ratio would be "ice cream is healthy and kids 4eva more can eat it every night" OR it is WHY the court decides it's healthy and thus foreva more kids can eat ice cream every night?

where will u find the ratio?

reasons --> healthy--> application dismissed

which is the ratio, in other words, what's the ratio for the decision?
is it somewhere in the "reasons" bit (perhaps icecream makes u happy) or the "healthy" bit (i.e. statement that icecream is healthy).

 

[MoonlightSonata]

The ratio involves the statements of law necessary for the decision. The example is not very helpful, so let me remake the situation.

The applicant wishes to stop his child from eating ice-cream for dinner. The judge looks at the relevant law, and decides that the applicant does not have the legal right to do this. In coming to this decision the judge looked at the Nice Food Act, which stipulates that children have a fundamental right to eat "nice food" at dinner. It so happens that "nice food" is not defined in the act, and so the judge has to also decide if ice-cream is a "nice food". He decides that it is, and so accordingly the child has a right to eat it.

The ratio would be that:
(i) Ice-cream constitutes "nice food" for the purposes of the Nice Food Act.
(ii) Adults cannot prohibit their children from eating ice-cream for dinner.

 

[Angel45]

The ratio would be that:
(i) Ice-cream constitutes "nice food" for the purposes of the Nice Food Act.
(ii) Adults cannot prohibit their children from eating ice-cream for dinner.


So what distinguishes between the decision handed down by the court and the ratio?

See I was thinking
(i) Ice-cream constitutes "nice food" for the purposes of the Nice Food Act.
(ii) Adults cannot prohibit their children from eating ice-cream for dinner.

was more the decision, as implied by the order of the court.

And ratio would be how they came perhaps the decision that ice-cream constitutes "nice food".

Am I misguided?

 

[Angel45]

Like I have a def. ""argument or reasoning upon which the ultimate decision is made"

So for the case I'm looking at I dunno if it's means reasoning upon which the appplication for blah blah was dismissed is based...

OR

reasoning upon which the decision that led to the appplication for blah blah was dismissed is based.

Reason which led to--> (for argument's sake) law held to be constitutinoally invalid--> application being dismissed

not sure how far back in the "reasoning" to go

 

[Soma]

I think moonlight sonata has already explained himself quite aptly.

"The ratio involves the statements of law necessary for the decision. "

I.e. it is not the decision, the decision is not to allow the parent to prevent his child from eating the icecream, the reason (ratio) being that it is a breach of the Nice Food Act and hence the parent is not able to force this action.

The obiter dictum would go into much more detail upon how the judge arrived at the conclusion that ice cream constitutes a 'nice food'.

 

[Angel45]

Thanks heaps. Appreciate it!

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Yes, when I say legal statements necessary for the decision, I mean in the sense of the outcome.

 

[Frigid]

why aren't u at kirby's speech MS?

 

[neo o]

MS!!

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Why aren't YOU at Kirby's speech?

hehe.

Okay well, I know. It's shocking. But in brief there are a number of reasons:
1. I have a whole lot of crap due tomorrow - poltics stuff, metaphysics readings (applying possible world theory to arguments for God takes time!)
2. I have a bloody crim assignment due friday week along with a philosophy essay due next tuesday
3. The damn girl I'm after couldn't go
4. I don't actually go in to uni on tuesdays

So while any one of those reasons may not be valid excuses, if you combine all of them together...

I'm kinda annoyed though. Tell me how it went anyone

 

[Frigid]

3. The damn girl I'm after couldn't go

for hopeless romantics like us, that is sufficient consideration enough

as with all kirby speeches, i betcha SMH is gonna run a story tomolo, linking up the transcript on the HCA page

 

[= Jennifer =]

i have a feeling i have found the ratio in a case, is it usually just a paragraph?

 

[= Jennifer =]

so therefore, would obiter be anything that is not meant to be determined by the courts for example the Lolly Act 2003?

 

[MoonlightSonata]

The ratio won't always be summarised for you in a neat paragraph

Obiter is anything that was not a statement of law necessary to reach the decision, comments 'in passing'

 

[Demandred]

Moonlight's right. I find it easy to get the ratio, but extremely hard to summarise all the obiter from all the judges into a neat paragraph.

 

[Angel45]

When u have seven judges there's like all diff. obiter.. how do u make ONE STATEMENT on what it is?


*stressed*

 

[Frigid]

When u have seven judges there's like all diff. obiter.. how do u make ONE STATEMENT on what it is?


*stressed*

you don't.

nobody ever said that ratios are consistent among judges, even if they arrive at the same finding...

so in your casenote, perhaps you should explain succintly each judge's ratios and obiters... even the dissenting judge, coz he's cool enough to be different

 

[Angel45]

We have a question though that requests that

 

[Frigid]

We have a question though that requests that

if you are only allowed one sentence to state the ratio and one sentence to state the obiter, and there are several ratios and obiters in the case... then i think you should say that there is no one clear ratio, but rather several rationes from the different judges which arrive at the same conclusion.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

When u have seven judges there's like all diff. obiter.. how do u make ONE STATEMENT on what it is?


*stressed*

Try and pick out the important points which are not actually statements of law necessary for the decision. For example, a judge might speculate on what the law might be if the fact scenario was changed, despite not deciding on this point at all. While this speculation is obviously important (especially if the facts arise in a future case) it is only obiter.