modern interpretation
Statutory interpretation is the legal process whereby a judge applies a statute to a case and must give meaning to the words in the statute in order to decide what they mean and how it should be applied to a particular case. When interpreting statutes, the judges role is to put into effect the Parliaments wishes. Conflicts may arise when deciding if the intention of Parliament can be found in the words of the statute itself or whether judges should acquire into the purpose of the Act then interpret the words themselves. In order to interpret these statutes, over the years, various guidelines were developed in order to assist judges in their interpretative function. The basic approaches which first arose are the literal rule, the golden rule and the mischief rule.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,
At the end of the day, the judges themselves will choose on their views on which approach is likely to produce the interpretation most beneficial to the public interest. A case example would be Smith v Hughes(1960) where a prostitute who, from her window, encouraged gentleman to avail themselves of her services was successfully prosecuted for 'soliciting in the street' as the purpose of the legislation was to prevent annoyance to people in public places arising from the activities of prostitutes. As for the other approaches, the intrinsic and extrinsic aids, presumptions, the rules of language and the contextual and purposive approach, is probably preferred compared to the basic approaches. On the other hand, the use of approaches could be lessened if the procedure for making and drafting statutes were improved. Thirdly, long sentences without paragraphs should be avoided in order to avoid confusion. The courts are severely limited in doing this by their limited access to the use of extrinsic materials such as Hansard debates, Reports of Royal Commissions or explanatory notes accompanying a new Act of Parliament. This would mean no one could ever be convicted and it was an absurd result. Whether the basic approaches or the other approaches such as the intrinsic and extrinsic aids, they are all the same in the end. Secondly, there should be less details included in the legislation, introducing a simpler style. was not 'offering for sale' but making an invitation to treat and he was acquitted. 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. commits an offence' and the defendant was convicted.
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,
golden rule mischief,
rule mischief rule,
|
Acceptance Essays
