Rules of Intepretation (literal, golden and mischief)
- Created by: Zaynab
- Created on: 22-12-20 12:25
View mindmap
- The Rules of Interpretation
- How do judges make decisions about what words mean?
- Materials inside the Act
- Materials outside the Act
- Rules
- Presumption
- the Literal Rule
- what is the natural or ordinary meaning of that word or phrase in its context in the statute?
- Whitely v Chappell (1868). Court held D not guilty as person dead and therefore, literally not entitled to vote.
- R v Harris court held biting did not come under role of 'stab,cut or wound' as no instrument involved.
- general rules
- may lead to unexpected results that were not intent of Pment
- Required judge to give words of statute their natural, ordinary or dictionary meaning
- Should be applied without judge seeking to 'gloss' over words or seek to make sense of statute
- LNER v Berriman (1946). Courts took 'relaying and repairing' literally. said oiling joints was maintaining the line.
- Fisher v Bell (1960). literal rule used. legal meaning of 'offer for sale' does not include where placed in shop, is invitation to treat.
- Advantages
- respects Parliamentary Sovereignty
- Allows law to be predictable and consistent
- Does not promote Judge to position of law maker. apply law simply as it stands
- Disadvantages
- Assumes perfect drafting by Parliament
- Can lead to absurd/ harsh decisions
- what is the natural or ordinary meaning of that word or phrase in its context in the statute?
- The Golden Rule
- Take whole of statute together, give words their ordinary signification, unless when applied bring absurdity and inconsistency
- Adler v George (1964) - broad approach. DivCo found Ds guilty as absurd if causing obstruction outside prohibited place were guilty but people inside prohibited place were not.
- the narrow approach
- used when more than one meaning of a word.
- reflects judges' views on how it ought to be used. Suggests more limits and restrictions than other rules.
- Consequences
- opportunities for judiciary law making
- narrow approach allows them to choose between several meanings
- Broad approach allows to modify meanings of words used
- Advantages
- courts can alter statute wording
- respects Parliament Authority
- courts can alter statute wording
- Disadvantages
- inconsistent rulings
- Law com says limited use
- Mischief rule
- requires Court to look at what law was before statute passed to discover what problem/ mischief statute intended to solve
- Gives Court justification for going beyond actual wording of statute to consider problem particular statute aimed at remedying
- Heydon's case (1584). breaks into 4 rules:
- 1.what was common law before making act?
- 3.remedy Pment resolved and appointed to cure disease of common wealth
- 4.true reason of remedy, office of all judges make sure mischief suppressed
- 2.what was mischief and defect for which common law did not provide
- 1.what was common law before making act?
- Heydon's case (1584). breaks into 4 rules:
- How does the Court discover mischief
- looks at gap in law Pment felt necessary to close
- interprets act and 'remedy' mischief Pment had been aiming to remedy.
- does this by looking at previous statutes, decisions previous courts made which were passed about
- Also read Parliamentary debate before Act passed
- Smith v Hughes. 6 women. none had been in street. Argued NG because not literally in street/ public place. Held G
- Corkery v Carpenter. riding bike within mischief of Act as D represent danger to himself and other road users
- Elliot v Grey. car represented hazard, thus insurance required.
- Corkery v Carpenter. riding bike within mischief of Act as D represent danger to himself and other road users
- How do judges make decisions about what words mean?
- Gives Court justification for going beyond actual wording of statute to consider problem particular statute aimed at remedying
- Heydon's case (1584). breaks into 4 rules:
- 1.what was common law before making act?
- 3.remedy Pment resolved and appointed to cure disease of common wealth
- 4.true reason of remedy, office of all judges make sure mischief suppressed
- 2.what was mischief and defect for which common law did not provide
- 1.what was common law before making act?
- Heydon's case (1584). breaks into 4 rules:
Comments
No comments have yet been made