Other slides in this set

Slide 2

Preview of page 2

Here's a taster:

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION IS HOW JUDGES IN A COURT ROOM INTERPRET A
MEANING OR A PHRASE ON AN ACT OF LAW.
THERE ARE MANY REASONS AS TO WHY THIS WOULD BE UNCLEAR:
1. A BROAD TERM- THESE ARE WORDS USED TO DESCRIBE SEVERAL
MEANINGS. DANGEROUS DOGS ACT (1991) THERE IS THE PHRASE `ANY DOG OF
THE TYPE KNOWN AS THE PITBULL TERRIER' THE QUESTION IS, WHAT IS MEANT
BY TYPE? DOES IT MEAN THE SAME AS BREED?. THE QUEENS BENCH DIVISIONAL
COURT, IN BROCK V DDP, DECIDED THAT `TYPE' HAD A WIDER MEANING THAN
`BREED' AND THAT THIS WOULD COVER DOGS WITH SIMILAR CHARACTERISTICS
OF SUCH A DOG.
2. AMBIGUITY- THESE ARE WORDS THAT HAVE MORE THAN ONE MEANING, AND
IT IS NOT CLEAR WHICH MEANING SHOULD BE USED.
3. A DRAFTING ERROR- THERE MAY BE AN ERROR IN THE STATUTE WHICH HAS
NOT BEEN NOTICED BY PARLIAMENT YET, THIS IS MOST LIKELY TO HAPPEN
WHEN A BILL IS AMMENDED SEVERAL TIMES.
4. NEW DEVELOPMENTS- CHANGES IN TECHNOLOGY MAY MEAN THAT AN ACT OF
PARLIAMENT DOES NOT COVER MODERN DAY SITUATIONS. IN THE ROYAL
COLLEGE OF NURSING V DHSS (1981) IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT SCIENCE…read more

Slide 3

Preview of page 3

Here's a taster:

LITERAL RULE
COURTS USING THIS RULE WILL GIVE WORDS THERE PLAIN, ORDINARY
MEANING, EVEN IF THE OUTCOME IS NOT A SENSIBLE RESULT.
THIS IDEA WAS EXPRESSED IN R V JUDGE OF THE CITY OF LONDON COURT
(1892) -
"IF THE WORDS OF AN ACT ARE UNCLEAR THEN YOU MUST FOLLOW THEM EVEN
THOUGH THEY LEAD TO A MANIFEST ABSURDITY. THE COURT HAS NOTHING TO
DO WITH THE QUESTIION WHETHER THE LEFISLATURE HAS COMMITED AN
ABSURRDITY"
CASES
1. WHITELEY V CHAPPELL (1868) ­ DEFENDANT WAS CHARGED UNDER A
SECTION WHICH MADE IT AN OFFENCE TO IMPERSONATE `ANY PERSON
ENTITLED TO VOTE'. THE DEFENDANT PRETENDEDTO BE A PERSON WHOSE
NAME WAS ON THE VOTERS LIST, BUT HAD DIED. COURT HELD THAT THE
DEFENDANT WAS NOT GUILTY SINCE A DEAD PERSON, IN THE LITERAL
MEANING OF THE WORDS, IS NOT ENTITLED TO VOTE. THIS MADE THE LAW
ABSURED IN THIS CASE.
2. LONDON & NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY CO. V BERRIMAN (1946) ­ RAILWAY
WORKER WAS KILLED WHILE DOING MAINTANCE WORK, OILING POINTS
ALONG THE RAILWAY LINE. HIS WIDOW TRIED TO CLAIM COMPENSATION
BCAISE THERE HAD BEEN NO LOOK-OUT MAN PROVIDED FOR THE PURPOSES…read more

Slide 4

Preview of page 4

Here's a taster:

LITERAL RULE
ADVANTAGES
1. THE RULE FOLLOWS THE WORDS PARLIAMENT HAS USED ­ IT IS RIGHT THAT
JUDGES SHOULD APPLY THE LAW AS IT IS WRITTEN SEEING AS PARLIAMENT
IS OUR LAW MAKING BODY.
2. THE LAW IS MORE CERTAIN- THE LAW IS INTERPRETED HOW IT IS WRITTEN,
THIS MADES IT EASIER FOR PEOPLE TO KNOW WHAT THE LAW IS AND HOW
JUDGES WILL APPLY IT.
DISADVANTAGES
1. THIS RULE ASSUMES EVERY ACT WILL BE PERFECTLY DRAFTED. IT IS NOT
ALWAYS POSSIBLE TO WORD AN ACT SO THAT IT COVERS EVERY SITUATION
PARLIAMENT MEANT IT TO, AS SEEN IN THE CASE OF WHITELEY V CHAPPELL.
2. WORDS MAY HAVE MORE THAN ONE MEANING, SO THE ACT IS UNCLEAR. AS
SHOWN IN THE DANGEROUS DOGS ACT.
3. FOLLOWING THE WORDS EXACTLY MAY LEAD TO UNJUST OR UNFAIR
DECISIONS. AS SHOWN IN LONDON & NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY CO. V
BERRIMAN.…read more

Slide 5

Preview of page 5

Here's a taster:

GOLDEN RULE
THIS RULE STARTS BY LOOKING AT THE LITERAL RULE BUT THE COURT CAN
AVOID INTERPRETATION THAT WOULD LEAD TO AN ABSURD OUTCOME. THERE
ARE TWO VIEWS ON HOW FAR IT SHOULD BE USED. THE FIRST IS NARROW, AND
SHOWN IN JONES V DPP (1962).
" IT IS A CARDINAL PRINCIPLE APPLICABLE TO ALL KINDS OF STATUES THAT YOU
MAY NOT FOR ANY REASON ATTACH TO A STAUTORY PROVISION A MEANING
WHICH THE WORDS OF THAT PROVISION CANNOT REASONABLY BARE. IF THEY
ARE CAPABLE OF MORE THAN ONE MEANING, YOU MAY CHOSE BETWEEN THOSE
MEANINGING, BUT BEYOND THIS YOU CANNOT GO."
SO UNDER THE APPLICATION OF THE NARROW RULE, THE COURT MAY ONLY
CHOSE BETWEEN THE MEANING OF A WORD OR PHRASE, IF THERE IS ONLY ONE
MEANING, THEN IT MUST BE TAKEN.
THE SECOND VIEW IS A WIDER APPLICATION OF THE RULE WHERE THE WORDS
HAVE ONLY ONE CLEAR MEANING, BUT THAT MEANING WOULD LEAD TO A
ABSURED SITUATION. IN THIS CASE THE COURT WILL USE TO GOLDEN RULE TO
MODIFY THE WORDS IN THE STATUTE IN ORDER TO AVOID THE PROBLEM
CASES
1. R V ALLEN (1872) ­ IN THIS CASE THE OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT
1861 MADE IT AN OFFENCE TO `MARRY' WHILST ONE'S ORIGINAL SPOUSE
WAS STIL ALIVE (AND THERE HAD BEEN NO DIVORCE). THE WORD `MARRY'…read more

Slide 6

Preview of page 6

Here's a taster:

GOLDEN RULE
ADVANTAGES
1. IT RESPECTS THE EXACT WORDS OF PARLIAMENT EXCEPT IN LIMITED
SITUATIONS. WHERE THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THE LITERAL RULE, THE
GOLDEN RULE IS AN `ESCAPE ROUTE'.
2. IT ALLOWS THE JUDGE TO CHOSE THE MOST SENSIBLE MEANING WHEN
THERE IS MORE THAN ONE MEANING TO A WORD IN AN ACT. THIS CAN
PROVIDE SENSIBLE DECISIONS IN CASES WHERE THE LITERAL RULE WOULD
PRODUCE ABSURD OUTCOMES. THIS MEANS THE WORST PROBLEMS CAN BE
AVOIDED, AS SHOWN IN R V SIGSWORTH.
DISADVANTAGES
1. IT IS VERY LIMITED IN IT'S USE, SO IT IS ONLY USED ON RARE OCCASIONS.
2. IT IS NOT ALWAYS POSSIBLE TO PREDICT WHEN A COURT WILL USE IT.
3. IT IS AN ESCAPE ROUTE, BUT CANNOT DO VERY MUCH ­ MICHAEL ZANDER.…read more

Slide 7

Preview of page 7
Preview of page 7

Slide 8

Preview of page 8
Preview of page 8

Slide 9

Preview of page 9
Preview of page 9

Slide 10

Preview of page 10
Preview of page 10

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Law resources:

See all Law resources »See all resources »