StudentShare
Contact Us
Sign In / Sign Up for FREE
Search
Go to advanced search...
Free

Statutory Interpretation - Assignment Example

Cite this document
Summary
In the paper “Statutory Interpretation” the author discusses the three statutory rules, which employed by judges in interpreting statutes are (a) the mischief rule (b) the literal rule and (c) the golden rule. The Mischief rule derives from a time when common law prevailed with Parliamentary Supremacy…
Download full paper File format: .doc, available for editing
GRAB THE BEST PAPER91% of users find it useful
Statutory Interpretation
Read Text Preview

Extract of sample "Statutory Interpretation"

Sta y Interpretation Introduction: Parliament is sovereign, as articulated by Oxford A.V. Dicey who d that “in theory, Parliament has total power, it is sovereign” thereby it is the source of all valid authority.1 Therefore, applying this criterion, the judicial function of interpretation of the law is also based upon the absolute and indivisible sovereignty of the British Parliament2. No one has the authority to set aside any law of Parliament except Parliament itself, hence Courts may only use their powers to constrain any abuse of powers by the other arms of Government, such as the legislative and executive branches.3 Statutory interpretation may be addressed both from the legal and non legal perspectives. While a legal approach to statutory interpretation may focus upon the kinds of arguments that are likely to succeed in a court of law, approaches from the non legal side include philosophical language and constitutional theory since a different objective is sought to be attained.4 As Bell points out, the legal approach will take into consideration the role of the Judge as an interpreter of the constitution and some presuppositions about how words derive their meaning. Bennion identifies several factors that can create difficulties in interpretation of statutes, such as for example, the use of ambiguous words or unforeseen developments or in some cases where a drafting error may cause literal interpretation of the statute to produce an absurd result.5 Interpretation of statutes as such, occurs on the basis of rules and principles developed by judges, although the Interpretation Act of 1978 does provide some definitions of provisions to facilitate the function. The Three statutory rules: The three statutory rules employed by judges in interpreting statutes are (a) the mischief rule (b) the literal rule and (c) the golden rule6. The Mischief rule derives from a time when common law prevailed with Parliamentary Supremacy in place, where statutes were not significant. Four factors were laid out for consideration in applying the statutes: (a) what was the common law in existence (b) what was the defect that presented itself which was not addressed in the common law? (c) what was the remedy devised by Parliament to cure this aspect? (d) How could the judge interpret the statute to allow such defect to be cured?7 This rule was applied in the case of Smith v Hughes.8 The literal rule requires that a Judge interpret a statute in strict accordance with the literal language that has been used by the framers of the Statute, on the basis that such language best declares “the intention of the lawgiver.”9 This rule has been applied in some cases such as Whiskey v Chappell.10 Some of the advantages of employing this approach include the facility of precision in interpretation and the fact that the legislative function of Parliament is protected from usurpation by the judiciary. However, this approach has also been criticized on the basis that a literal interpretation may place too much emphasis on imperfect language without looking into the spirit of the law and thereby hinder justice. Moreover, it does not take into account mistakes in the use of language or the inadequacy of language to express exact meanings. The golden rule came into existence in order to address the problems created by the literal approach where such strict statutory interpretation often led to absurdity in results, therefore such a result had to be modified since an interpretation that was not absurd was to be preferred11. The rule was first set out in the case of Grey v Pearson12 where Lord Wenslydale clarified that the words of a statute “may be modified, so as to avoid that absurdity and inconsistency, but no father.” However, this approach also leaves some ambiguity in interpretation, since there is no clear measure to test absurdity or its extent. In the selection of the choice of rule that must be applied, judges have shown flexibility and tend to “treat all three as valid and refer to them as occasion demands.”13 However, a system of purposive interpretation has been developing, whereby judges try to give effect to the intentions of law makers by adopting precedents established in earlier cases. The system of precedent: The adopting of the literal interpretation approach is one that is often inadequate, for the reasons that are cited above. Therefore the general practice that has been adopted by judges is to consider the ordinary meaning of the words within a general context of the issue at hand in the particular case14. If these general principles of statutory interpretation yield an absurd result, the decision of the judges will not reflect it. The system of interpretation of statute by precedent relies upon the decisions that have been spelt out in previous cases, using them as a guideline for further interpretation of fresh cases through the use of a purposive approach. For example, in the case of Notham v London Borough of Barnet15 a purposive approach was used on the basis that it would “promote the general legislative provisions” of the statute under consideration. In the case of R v Barnet LBC16 it was further clarified that purposive interpretation may be used only when it can be shown to be an aid to decipher Parliamentary intentions. The need to give effect to true legislative intent was further corroborated in subsequent cases such as Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart.17 EC Law: The European Communities Act of 1972 requires that all rights and powers, etc that arise under the EC treaties, together with the remedies provided for, are to be “given legal effect….in the United Kingdom.”18 Thus in effect, through the incorporation of the Communities Act of 1972, the UK has handed over its power to the European Community, so that EU law will take precedence over UK law, as was also established in the case of Factorame19. According to Dicey, the judicial role is to protect Parliamentary sovereignty from any encroachment by the executive, interpret statutes in accordance with Parliamentary intention and in doing so, fulfill the function that Parliament has assigned to judicial authorities.20 However, in the context of universal human rights as mandated by the European Convention of Human Rights, there is a potential conflict that is posed with the pervasive power of Parliament and the potential revamping of the statutory interpretation process.21 For example, in the case of Ghaidan v Mendoza22 Mr. Mendoza’s application for statutory tenancy which would have been invalid using UK statutes, was granted on grounds of discriminatory violation of his Convention Rights under Article 14 and Article 8 on the basis of his sexual orientation. Hence EC law now requires statutory interpretation by judges in such a manner that it will be given precedence over UK law. The Human Rights Act of 1988: The Human Rights Act of 1988 incorporated the goals of the European Convention of Human Rights23 within the framework of national law, by including a provision that Parliament legislation is to be interpreted and read in such a manner as to give effect to the goals of the Convention24, while the judiciary has also been given the power under the Act to declare Parliament legislation incompatible with Convention rights25. Within the UK, the European Convention was not directly relevant to statutory interpretation26 until the introduction of the Human Rights Act of 1998. Parliamentary sovereignty means that UK law can override international law27, however, the Communities Act of 1972 and the Human Rights Act have raised the question of supremacy of EU law over national law and its application within the country. However, it must be noted that the declaration of incompatibility28 is a limited judicial function, it does not override the supremacy of UK parliament legislation, judicial prerogative extends only up to a declaration of incompatibility and it is up to Parliament to reform or modify the incompatible national law to conform to the European Convention. Parliamentary Sovereignty in the UK has therefore posed the urgent need for Constitutional reform within the country.29 A collection of regulatory rules and political practices have constituted constitutional implementation, which has traditionally imbued Parliament with the right to modify the constitution on the basis of a majority in both houses of Parliament.30 The current existence of the Human Rights Act has resulted in significant changes within the UK, with the individual supremacy mandated by the European Convention often rising in conflict with established principles of UK law and statutes31. However, as pointed out by Justice Arden, Parliamentary sovereignty is still preserved and the Courts “are not given any power to strike down statues which infringe Convention rights.”32 It merely allows some judicial latitude in interpretation, in order to ensure that universal human rights principles are to be given added weight in adjudication33. Conclusions: The process of statutory interpretation for UK judges has been limited by Parliamentary Sovereignty. Where fundamental rights are concerned, British judges have used such interpretation to protect what they consider as fundamental rights.34 In the case of R v Secretary of State, Lord Bridge clarified that in cases involving fundamental rights, the Courts are “perfectly entitled to start from the premise that any restriction of the right to freedom of expression requires to be justified and that nothing less than an important competing public interest will be sufficient to justify it.”35 As pointed out by Lord Steyn36, the developments in European law have created a new legal order in the U.K. The incorporation of the Human Rights Act into UK law has mandated interpretation of statutes in accordance with EC law, in opposition to Parliamentary Sovereignty. While the literal interpretative approach has been criticized on many grounds, judges are increasingly adopting a purposive approach and the provisions of EC law have allowed a greater degree of flexibility in interpretation to UK judges, such that they may also declare the incompatibility of a statute with EU law. Therefore, in contravention to the period when the mischief rule was adopted, statutory interpretation has assumed greater importance as compared to common law. In view of developments in EC law, judges are required to exercise a greater degree of judicial discretion in applying precedents to cases. Bibliography Books/Journals: * Bell, John, 1986. “Bennion’s statutory interpretation” Oxford Journal of legal Studies, 6(2): 288-298 * Bennion, F.A.R., 1990. “Statute Law” * Craig, Paul, 1990. Public Law and Democracy in the United Kingdom and United States of America, pp 21-22 * Cross, Rupert, 1955. “Statutory interpretation” (3rd edn) * Dicey, A/.V. (1885) “Law of the Constitution” 10th edition, 1914. Oxford: Oxford University Press * Elliot, Mark, 2001. The Constitutional Foundations of Judicial review, 44-49. * Justice Arden, 2004. The interpretation of UK domestic legislation in the light of European Convention on Human Rights jurisprudence Statute Law Review, 25(3):166 * Lord Browne Wilkinson, 1992. The infiltration of a Bill of Rights. Public Law 397, at 409. * Lord Bingham, Dicey Revisited (2002) Public Law 39 * McCrudden, Christopher, 2000. A common law of human rights?Transnational judicial conversations on constitutional rights Oxford Journal of legal Studies, 20(4) at 503 * Smith & Bailey, 1996. Smith and Bailey on the Modern English Legal System (3rd edn): 351-403 * Turpin, C, 2002. British Government and the Constitution. Text, Cases and materials 5th edn. London: Butterworths, pp 10 * Willis John (1938) “Statutory interpretation in a nutshell” Cases: * Cheney v Conn [1958] 1 WLR 242 * Ghaidan v Godin Mendoza (2004) UKHL 30 * Grey v Pearson (1857) 6 HL Cas 61 * Heydon’s Case (1584) 3 Co Rep 7 * Jackson and Others v Her Majesty’s Attorney General (2005) UKHL 56 * Notham v London Borough of Barnet [1978] 1 WLR 220 * Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart [1993] AC 593 * R v Allen (1872) LR 1 CCR 367 * R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Brind (1991) 1 AC 696 at 748-49 * R v Barnet LBC [1983] 2 AC 309 * R v Secretary of State for Transport ex p FactortameLtd. [1989] 2 WLR 997 No2 [1990] 3 WLR 818 and No3 3 All ER 769. * Smith v Hughes (1960) 2 All ER 859 * Sussex Peerage Case (1844) 11 CI&Fin 85 * Whiskey v Chappell (1868) LR 4 QB 147 Legislation: * European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms * European Communities Act 1972 * Human Rights Act of 1988 * Interpretation Act of 1978 Read More
Tags
Cite this document
  • APA
  • MLA
  • CHICAGO
(Statutory Interpretation Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words, n.d.)
Statutory Interpretation Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 words. https://studentshare.org/law/1705792-in-interpreting-statutes-and-developing-the-common-law-the-judiciary-are-creating-the-law-rather-than-simply-acting-as-adjudicators-discuss
(Statutory Interpretation Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 Words)
Statutory Interpretation Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 Words. https://studentshare.org/law/1705792-in-interpreting-statutes-and-developing-the-common-law-the-judiciary-are-creating-the-law-rather-than-simply-acting-as-adjudicators-discuss.
“Statutory Interpretation Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1500 Words”. https://studentshare.org/law/1705792-in-interpreting-statutes-and-developing-the-common-law-the-judiciary-are-creating-the-law-rather-than-simply-acting-as-adjudicators-discuss.
  • Cited: 2 times

CHECK THESE SAMPLES OF Statutory Interpretation

What is statutory construction

His words sum up the courts' sentiments when it comes to the issue of Statutory Interpretation.... His words sum up the courts' sentiments when it comes to the issue of Statutory Interpretation.... In the exercise of its interpretive powers, the courts are governed by established principles of Statutory Interpretation .... Indeed, when an ambiguous Act of Parliament is brought before the court for interpretation, the court is caught between the crossfire of two opposing parties, each wanting for the law to be interpreted in such a way that would favor their interests....
5 Pages (1250 words) Essay

The Principal Powers Available to the Courts in England & Wales

hellip; Judicial precedent in the Statutory Interpretation follows the doctrine of 'Stare Decisis' which simply means that judges are bound to follow prior precedence's which have been set by the courts of records....   Before the implementation of the Human Rights Act of 1998, the courts of England and Wales used to apply 3 rules to Statutory Interpretation which are the literal rule, the golden rule and the mischief rule.... We will consider all three rules of Statutory Interpretation below and also the effect of the Human Rights act of 1998....
6 Pages (1500 words) Coursework

Statutory Interpretation Rules as a Helpful Guide

The golden rule – when literal interpretation leads to silliness, it is improvised to a less obvious meaning.... The mischief rule – It defines the issue the Act was meant to resolve and decides on the interpretation which best suites the issue.... There are certain other rules of interpretation, which come under two sub categories (UK Law Online).... The purposive approach, based on the golden rule, is preferred in Europe and the ECJ while the literal approach of statutory interpretations is the preferred choice throughout in the UK (legal Easy, 2006)....
4 Pages (1000 words) Essay

Statutory Interpretation in the Common World

Following the four (4) step process, this paper intends to discuss common law rules of Statutory Interpretation in order to establish whether or not Thalia has really breached Sec.... The identified area of the law is Statutory Interpretation.... It is important to establish the common law rules of Statutory Interpretation to come up with a sound bases for the decision whether Thalia is guilty of the offense....
5 Pages (1250 words) Essay

The Interpretation of the Statute

With these and other reasons, the paper is highly intensified. The ess in which the courts interpret and apply legislation in the courts is known as the Statutory Interpretation.... However, apart from statutes making law, Statutory Interpretation involves making a decision on how a particular bill or law will apply in a particular case.... They use several measures and methods of Statutory Interpretation such as theuse of traditional canons of Statutory Interpretation, legislative history and additionally the purpose....
9 Pages (2250 words) Assignment

The Principles and Rules That Judges Use to Interpret Statutes

Referring to the question of Statutory Interpretation that is conducted by judges to declare whether the defendant has committed an offence or not, Tom's case poses certain questions that need to be addressed and analyzed in the light the principles and rules of Statutory Interpretation....
7 Pages (1750 words) Essay

Business Law: Courts in England and Wales

Statutory Interpretation involves the reading and application of the provisions of Acts of Parliament by judges who try to establish the intention of the lawmakers.... This essay stresses that the golden rule enables the court to explore the literal interpretation of a word or phrase in an Act, but give the literal world(s) some meaning as a way of avoiding an absurdity.... hellip; According to the report English court's interpretations of statutory provisions reflect the intention of parliament, while in other cases they do not....
5 Pages (1250 words) Essay

The Statutory Interpretation as a Tool for the Formulation of the Courts Judgment

The author of this paper states that the examination and the analysis of the methods of Statutory Interpretation require a detailed presentation of their characteristics in order to define their value as well as their role to the 'construction' of the modern common law.... Under all circumstances, 'the statutes assume the existence of the Common Law and they would have no meaning except by reference to the Common Law' (Geldart, 1995, 2)A first step towards the complete presentation of the methods of Statutory Interpretation is the definition of 'interpretation' as it appears and operates in the legal area....
8 Pages (2000 words) Assignment
sponsored ads
We use cookies to create the best experience for you. Keep on browsing if you are OK with that, or find out how to manage cookies.
Contact Us