It’s the time of year when many of us return to our favourite Christmas fables to get into the festive spirit.
While film often relies on the audience suspending its disbelief, it’s easy to watch and wonder if people could get away with these things in the real world. Are some of them even legal?
As a team of experts, we looked at the legal conundrums posed by Home Alone, Love Actually, Miracle on 34th Street and The Grinch.
Home Alone
Let’s begin by exploring one of the perennial favourites.
It’s never a good idea to leave your eight-year-old home alone for three days, even if he’s surrounded by Yuletide paraphernalia.
While there is no prescribed age at which time a child can legally be left alone, parents have a responsibility to ensure their children are safe and their needs are met.
Failure to do this can lead to a child protection investigation and even criminal charges.
But police may have breached their duty of care after promising to check on Kevin then departing when Kevin failed to answer, leaving him at the mercy of the “wet bandits”.
It’s possible the police may be liable in negligence for any damage Kevin suffered as a result, so the burglars are not the only ones in potential trouble.
In the meantime, Kevin sets booby-traps to foil the intruders. Could this approach to self-protection backfire legally?
The law of occupiers’ liability states that homeowners owe a duty of care to ensure their property is safe for visitors, and that includes uninvited guests, even those who might do them harm.
An injured trespasser could conceivably sue Kevin’s parents on the basis that they inadequately supervised their child.
Having said that, the criminal law allows Kevin to act in reasonable self-defence, but the key here is whether the use of a blowtorch, or a whack from a heavy iron are reasonable defensive tactics.
In any event, Kevin is under the minimum age of criminal responsibility and cannot therefore be criminally liable.
In his next Christmas mishap, Kevin is home alone again. He boards the wrong flight and arrives in New York. He tells a credible lie to the front desk clerk at the five star hotel he checks into: “my dad gave me his credit card”.
So who’s going to be responsible for Kevin’s expenditures as the ruse continues? All credit card contracts include terms that make cardholders responsible for any charges on that card.
Moreover, there’s a clear obligation on cardholders that they keep the card safe and ensure it’s only used by the relevant cardholder.
But there is an obligation on merchants, too, not to continue with a transaction that they should have reasonably suspected was suspicious.
Which view will prevail here? Answer: dad will need to cover the debts because he had not reported his card missing, and Kevin’s angelic face was pretty convincing!
Love Actually
Many scenes in Love Actually would be in breach of Australia’s positive duty laws regarding sexual harassment. These laws require employers to take proactive steps to prevent discrimination, harassment and other unlawful conduct in the workplace.
In the movie, there are multiple incidents that wouldn’t look out of place in the the #MeToo moment.
The fictional US president, while on a state visit, inappropriately touches staff member Natalie. There’s a high-risk power-imbalance between tortured author Jamie and his young, insecurely employed Portuguese housekeeper, Aurelia.
There’s also the sexually aggressive Mia, secretary to Harry, who organises an office party in a gallery of naked images and “dark corners for doing dark deeds”.
Alarm bells should have been ringing in many HR offices that Christmas, as “love” like that at work is not actually lawful.
There is a memorable scene in Love Actually where young Sam runs through airport security to see Joanna, to tell her of his love.
While it pays off for Sam (getting a kiss from Joanna) in real life such actions have serious legal consequences.
Under Australian aviation security legislation, specifically Regulation 9 of the Aviation Transport Security Act and Regulations, a breach of security can result in a fine of up to $10,500.00.
And Sam is 13, meaning he would be criminally liable in all jurisdictions in Australia (note the ACT will raise the age of criminal responsibility to 14 in July 2025) because he clearly understands his actions are wrong.
So, while the scene touchingly highlights the lengths people will go for love, it’s a big gamble to breach security regulations. Running through airport security might not actually be worth it.
Miracle on 34th Street
Kris Kringle’s lawyer is going to need a miracle on 34th Street. He is taking some troubling instructions from his client. It’s in relation to an assault.
In order to be acquitted, Kris has to show that he’s not just someone who plays Santa, rather he’s the real Santa.
Under the Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules, however, a different legal approach is necessary, because the lawyer has a paramount duty to the court not to make frivolous submissions.
While Kris’s fatuous belief about his identity does not render him incapable of providing instructions, any legal practitioner must exercise caution when listening to nonsense.
The Grinch
The Grinch disguises himself as Santa Claus, steals a sleigh and breaks into homes to steal gifts, decorations and food. Grinch is clearly guilty of larceny as his intention is to deprive his victims permanently.
In some Australian jurisdictions his stealing could be considered “aggravated”, given the late hour and the age of victims (under 16 and over 60), whom he must have known would be in Yuletide-festive readiness.
But wait! In the morning the Grinch awakens to cheerful singing, and, in a moment of about face rectitude, he returns the stolen gifts, a matter that will be taken as an important mitigating factor in sentencing.
So, what do we learn from these heartstring-tugging tales, redemption narratives, and stories of good conquering evil? As it happens, a lot about the law, actually.
This post was originally published on here
