modern interpretation

The first main approach used by judges in interpreting statutes is the literal rule. This approach requires courts to give the exact meaning of words in statutes where there is no uncertainty and the meaning is clear. However, sometimes the literal rule may lead to an absurd result. An example of a case is Fisher v Bell(1961) where a statute stated it was an offence to ‘offer for sale’ offensive weapons. The verdict was the shopkeeper, who was displaying flick knives,

. . .
Lastly, there should be more consolidation of legislation. The disadvantage of this rule is that it places great reliance on the individual views of judges and magistrates. They are not in any way superior or inferior to each other. The extrinsic aids however are references not contained in the Act such as the dictionary, Interpretation Act 1978, past and following in Acts, precedent decision on meaning of words and the Hansard.

. Hence, more liberal use should be made of internal and external aids and in the event of ambiguity, the construction which best promoted the ‘general legislative purpose’ should be adopted. However, some judges believe that the only proper approach is applying the literal rule. There are a few presumptions that can arise in courts such as the presumption against modifying an existing law, presumption against the applying of liability without fault and the presumption against retrospective legislation. There are many ways of doing so, such as, and Act should have a statement of purpose in the same way older statutes had preambles.

On the other hand, the use of approaches could be lessened if the procedure for making and drafting statutes were improved. At the other end of the scale, other judges believe that it is up to them to evaluate and insure that absurd interpretations are avoided, and will apply the purpose approach. (Turner, 1999)

Basically the main approaches, the literal rule, the golden rule and the mischief rule, are guidelines, not strict rules, for judges in order to assist them in interpreting statutes. It can only be used if the legislation is unclear or the plain meaning of words leads to an absurdity. But then again, if the Parliament would improve the making and drafting of their statutes, approaches would not be widely used at all and confusion is more likely avoided. An example of a case is R v Allen(1872) whereby the defendant claimed it was no legal to marry another while already married.

Common topics in this essay:
Co Ltd, , Person Act, Smith Hughes1960, Vermeesch Lindgren, Mischief Rule, Interpretation Act, Vickery Pendleton, Act Moreover, Fisher Bell1961, literal rule, meaning words, extrinsic aids, words statute, basic approaches, intrinsic extrinsic aids, intrinsic extrinsic, absurd result, literal rule golden, rules language, golden rule, rule golden, rule golden rule, rule mischief rule, golden rule mischief,

Approximate Word count = 1478
Approximate Pages = 6 (250 words per page double spaced)

Already a member? Click here