Legal Methods Paper Term Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2250 words

Legal Methods - Term Paper Example Mrs McColl, the petitioner, sought to establish that fluoridation would have several unfavourable side effects such as causation of cancer and that it would be ineffective in minimizing dental decay (Murray, Rugg-Gunn and Jenkins 1991, p.349). The petitioner also held that, in any event, Strathclyde Regional Council did not have the legal power to fluoridate its water supplies. [# 2] The Ground(s) on which the petitioner alleged that the Council’s decision was  ultra vires      Mrs McColl had petitioned that fluoridation of the water supplies would be ultra vires the respondents (Strathclyde Regional Council), a nuisance, and thus illegal. The petitioner also claimed that fluoridation was a breach of the Water (Scotland) Act 1980 and a violation of the Medicines Act 1968. McColl claimed that adding fluoride to the water supply system was out with Strathclyde Regional Council powers. The Council did not have explicit powers on the issue of wholesomeness of the water. Howe ver, the Regional Council argued that it was in essence rendering the water more wholesome by righting a deficiency in fluoride, which results to caries. [# 3] Lord Jauncey’s Response to the Petitioner’s Arguments on the  ultra vires   Any decision that can be considered to have not been taken in a lawfully permitted manner is considered to be ultra vires. The judge repelled specifically and in details all of Mrs McColl assertions that fluoride was medically unsafe, excluding that of ultra vires. The judge concluded that the decision making body (Strathclyde Regional Council) acted in excess of its powers. Strathclyde Regional Council duty to provide wholesome water did not entail power to add fluoride to water. The judge also quoted the water (Scotland) Act 1980 to establish that the law obligated the provision of â€Å"wholesome water† by the Regional Council (Henriques and Winter 2002, p.143). Beyond this requirement, though, â€Å"statutory provisions w ere nonexistent, which could be reasonably construed as advocating the improvement of the general health of the water consumers.† Hence, the council was acting beyond its powers hinged on whether the addition of fluoride was necessary to make the water wholesome (contrary to making the water unwholesome). In his verdict, the judge declared that fluoridation for the purpose of minimizing the occurrence of dental decay was ultra-vires the respondent (Murray, Rugg-Gunn, and Jenkins 1991, p.350). Lord Jauncey granted the interdict on this point alone. Lord Jauncey also stated that it was improbable that parliament would have sought to award a water authority the authority to enhance â€Å"the health of the water consumers,† especially since water fluoridation would â€Å"incorporate a violation of individual rights† (Yiamouyiannis 1983, p.162). [# 4] Techniques of Precedent Utilized in McColl  v.  Strathclyde Regional Council Lord Jauncey’s 400-page judgem ent featured the medical evidence for or against water fluoridation, except for a few pages dealing with legal issues evident in the case. Prior to 1985, there was no explicit statutory basis for water fluoridation in the UK, although some water fluoridation schemes were present at the time. In forming his verdict, the judge reviewed other similar cases, especially that of Lower Butt, New Zealand, even though their findings were not necessarily binding (Wright 2009, p.183). Jauncey judgement examining sources of authority on the subject of wholesome water was not in depth, as the