Statutory interpretation essay

Statutory interpretation essay

Jun 23,  · Disclaimer: This essay has been written by a law student and not by our expert law writers. This interpretive approach, because it is laid down by Parliament, takes precedence over common law methods of Statutory Interpretation. But it does not make common law approaches redundant. For example, the relevant Question of Law may not involve a Sep 29,  · Statutory interpretation is the process by which courts interpret and apply legislation. Some amount of interpretation is often necessary when a case involves a statute. But in many cases, there is some ambiguity or vagueness in the words of the statute that must be resolved by the judge Nov 23,  · How to construct a conclusion for an essay, essay statutory interpretation, writing essays for chinese students english essay structure hsc, sat essay notes, essay direction on a test? Descriptive essay of my house indian culture essay in kannada language essays about work and play essay on information technology in education

Brief regarding Rules of Interpretation of statutes

Legislative intent is determined by examining secondary sources, such as committee reports, treatises, law review articles and corresponding statutes. This rule has often been used to resolve ambiguities in cases in which the literal rule cannot be applied but statutory interpretation essay problem is that the fact that this rule helps achieve that the use of this rule is limited due to Parliamentary intent. When we read an Act statutory interpretation essay Parliament the first and fundamental point of note is that it is not like reading a book or a newspaper, statutory interpretation essay.

Legislative text must be read according to the principles and rules as decided upon by the judges and the statute itself. A special skill is required to understand the meaning. This project will deal briefly statutory interpretation essay the subject, but it is hoped it will provide a better understanding of how a Judge approaches the problems. Similar questions are likely to statutory interpretation essay to anyone who begins to examine the theory and practice governing the interpretation of statutes.

Does the interpretation of statutes really depend on the rules which are. Supposed to regulate it? Does not a judge, according to his outlook and capacity, simply use these so-called rules to justify a decision which he has already reached on other grounds?

And should the Law Commissions, before embarking on an inquiry into the interpretation of. Statutes, statutory interpretation essay, have asked themselves whether their journey was really necessary? But as applied to the interpretation of statutes today, this answer is unsatisfying. It is true that a judge may express or reveal certain distaste for the policy of a statute and some reluctance to accept that it is intended to override not only his personal predilections which of course he would not dispute but also a long-established principle of the common law.

That this reluctance can still be of the greatest practical importance may be seen in the decision of the Court of Appeal in Allen v, statutory interpretation essay. Thorn Electrical Industries. Winn L. a that a statute is worded ambiguously in any particular respect, statutory interpretation essay, and. b finds also clear indications aliunde from another place that Parliament intended they should have the strictest and most stringent meaning possible, the court is therefore compelled to construe the section in the sense in which Parliament would desire it to take effect, bygiving the words their most stringent possible meaning.

On the contrary I think the right view is, and I understand always has been, that in such a case of ambiguity, it is resolved in such a way as to make the statute less onerous for the general public and so as to cause less interference, than the more stringent sense would, with such rights and liberties as existing contractual obligations.

Nevertheless I do not maintain that we could justify an enquiry into the interpretation of statutes solely on the ground that the judiciary approach statutes with some regard to what they conceive to be the generally accepted statutory interpretation essay of the society in which they live, or because they read statutes to some extent in the context of those values.

On the other hand I am far from suggesting that the present system of interpretation gives all the assistance which it might to the judge in determining in the first place whether the words of a statute really are ambiguous. A better answer to the questions which initially faced the Law Commissions with regard to the interpretation of statutes must begin by admitting that, whatever rules are devised for interpreting statutes, that task has many of the qualities of an art rather than of a science; and that an inspired interpretation of statutes cannot be achieved by the mechanical statutory interpretation essay of certain rules any more than a performance on the piano worthy of a Richter will automatically follow a diligent attention to the exercises of Czerny.

But if we forswear any intention to devise a comprehensive code of new rules for the interpretation of statutes, we may nevertheless justify a more modest enquiry and indeed explain its purpose by another musical analogy. Even a great pianist may be hampered by a bad instrument. The purpose of the Law Commissions has been to discover how far the present body of law and practice which is supposed to guide and assist the judge in his task of interpretation in fact fulfils that function; to determine how much of the vast statutory interpretation essay of learning which surrounds the interpretation of statutes is meaningful in the light of that function; and to make proposals which will not indeed ensure that statutes are better interpreted but at least put at the disposal of the judge an instrument sensitive and flexible enough to respond to the various and intricate demands of modern legislation.

As regards the mischief rule proper, you will have observed that Lord Simonds concedes that the mischief is part of the context and that he says that other sections of the statute, the preamble, the existing state of the law and other statutes in pari materia may be used to throw light on that mischief. The mischief rule of statutory interpretation is the oldest of the rules. In Re Sussex Peerageit was held that the mischief rule should only be applied where there is ambiguity in the statute, statutory interpretation essay.

This is a very important rule as far as the Interpretation of Statute is concerned. This very important case reported by Lord Coke and decided by the Barons of the Exchequer in the 16th century laid down the following rules:.

That for the sure and true interpretation of all statutes in general, be they penal or beneficial, restrictive or enlarging of the common law; four things are to be considered —. And then the office of all the Judges is always to make such construction as shall suppress the mischief and advance the remedy. Before proceeding any further, a word of warning is appropriate. It is necessary to discover their meaning at the time of writing. From the 14th century to the end of the 17th, the meaning of disease was lack of ease, disquiet or distress and Commonwealth, of course, meant the Country, statutory interpretation essay.

According to an early case, The Longford 14 P. Thus, we ask ourselves what the word meant on the day it was uttered if by analogy we argue that the same can be said of a judgment. The importance of the mischief rule in criminal law can best be shown by considering examples. An Act statutory interpretation essay Parliament will state the purpose for which it was enacted.

Statutory interpretation essay we take the case of Parkin v. Norman [] 2 All E. The long title to the Act reads:. The purposes of the Act and the mischief rule are, therefore, closely connected, and it is very genuine statutory interpretation essay look at the long title.

Another example of the application of the mischief rule is found in Ohison v. Hylton [] 2 All E. The facts, briefly, were a carpenter was on his way home from work. He boarded a train which was crowded. Another passenger objected and subsequently both finished up on the platform. The defendant, the carpenter, took one of his tools of his trade, a hammer, from his briefcase and struck the other man with it. He was charged under the Prevention of Crime Act Lord Widgery, CJstatutory interpretation essay, said, inter alia:.

Immediately prior to the passing of the Act the criminal law was adequate to deal with the actual use of statutory interpretation essay in the course of a criminal assault. Where it was lacking, statutory interpretation essay, however, was that the mere carrying of offensive weapons was not an offence. The long title of the Act reads as follows:, statutory interpretation essay. Parliament is there recognizing the need for preventive justice where, by preventing the carriage of offensive weapons in a public place, it reduced the statutory interpretation essay for the use of such weapons.

If, however, the prosecutor is right, the scope goes far beyond the mischief aimed at, and in every case where an assault is committed with a weapon and in a public place an offence under the Act can be charged in addition to the charge of statutory interpretation essay. Wales J. Singh and many more in this regard and therefore Purposive interpretation was introduced as a form of replacement for the mischief rule, the plain meaning rule and the golden rule to determine cases, statutory interpretation essay.

Purposive interpretation is exercised when the courts utilize extraneous materials from the pre-enactment phase of legislation, statutory interpretation essay, including early drafts, hansards, committee reports, statutory interpretation essay, white papers, etc, statutory interpretation essay.

The purposive interpretation involves a rejection of the exclusionary rule. Smith v. Hughes [ii]. The brief facts were that the defendant was a common prostitute who lived at No. On November 4,between 8.

and 9. the defendant solicited men passing in the street, for the purposes of prostitution, from a first-floor balcony of No. i to attract their attention to her by tapping on the balcony railing with some metal object and by hissing at them as they passed in the street beneath her and. The words of s. The defendants in this case were not themselves physically in the street but were in statutory interpretation essay house adjoining the street, on a balcony and she attracted the attention of men in the street by tapping and calling down to them.

At other part the defendants were in ground-floor windows, either closed or half open. The sole question here is whether in those circumstances each defendant was soliciting in a street or public place. Observe that it does not say there specifically that the person who is doing the soliciting must be in the street. Equally, it does not say that it is enough if the person who receives the solicitation or to whom it is addressed is in the street.

For my part, I approach the matter by considering what is the mischief aimed at by this Act. Everybody knows that this was an Act intended to clean up the streets, to enable people to walk along the streets without being molested or solicited by common prostitutes.

Viewed in that way, it can matter little whether the prostitute is soliciting while in the street or is standing in a doorway or on a balcony, or at a window, or whether the window is shut statutory interpretation essay open or half open; in each case her solicitation is projected to and addressed to somebody walking in the street.

For my part, I am content to base my decision on that ground and that ground alone. Royal College of Nursing v DHSS [iii]. The Royal College of Statutory interpretation essay brought an action challenging the legality of the involvement of nurses in carrying out abortions.

The Offences against the Person Act makes it an offence for any person to carry out an abortion. The Abortion Act provided that it would be an absolute defence for a medically registered practitioner i. a doctor to carry out abortions provided certain conditions were satisfied.

Advances in medical science statutory interpretation essay surgical abortions were largely replaced with hormonal abortions and it was common for these to be administered by nurses it was Held: It was legal for nurses to carry out such abortions.

The Act was aimed at doing away with back street abortions where no medical care was available. The actions of the nurses were therefore outside the mischief of the Act of and within the contemplate defence in the Act. Elliot v Grey [iv]. It was jacked up and had its battery removed. He was charged with an offence under the Road Traffic Act of using an uninsured vehicle on the road.

It was held: The court applied the mischief rule and held that the car was being used on the road as it represented a hazard and therefore insurance would be required in the event of an incident. The statutory interpretation essay was aimed at ensuring people were compensated when injured due to the hazards created by others.

Corkery v Carpenter [v]. The defendant was riding his bicycle whilst under the influence of alcohol. It was held: The court applied the mischief rule holding that a riding a bicycle was within the mischief of the Act as the defendant represented a danger to himself and other road users. According to S, statutory interpretation essay. A man was arrested drunk in charge of a bicycle. According to the plain meaning rule statutory interpretation essay bike is not a carriage.

Under the Mischief rule the bicycle could constitute a carriage. The mischief the act was attempting to remedy was that of people being on the road on transport while drunk, statutory interpretation essay.

Statutory Interpretation Part Two: Essay Guide, A Level Law Step-by-step Video Guide #1

, time: 16:42

Jun 23,  · Disclaimer: This essay has been written by a law student and not by our expert law writers. This interpretive approach, because it is laid down by Parliament, takes precedence over common law methods of Statutory Interpretation. But it does not make common law approaches redundant. For example, the relevant Question of Law may not involve a (A) THE RULES OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION 1. THE MISCHIEF RULE. The mischief rule is contained in Heydon’s Case () 3 Co Rep 7, where it was stated that for the true interpretation of all statutes four things are to be considered: 1st. What was the Sep 05,  · By Subhyanka Rao, RMLNLU. Editor’s Note: The Mischief Rule is a certain rule that judges can apply in statutory interpretation in order to discover Parliament’s intention. The application of this rule gives the judge more discretion than the literal and the golden rule as it allows him to effectively decide on Parliament’s intent