• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Most cases that reach our higher courts concern the interpretation, that is to say the meaning, of words in a statute. The reasons vary

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

1a) Most cases that reach our higher courts concern the interpretation, that is to say the meaning, of words in a statute. The reasons vary, for example words may be ambiguous Fisher v Bell; or broad or Parliamentary Counsel may have made a drafting error (Inco Europe v First Choice Distribution); or overtaken by technology (Royal College of Nursing v Department of Health). Over the years, the courts have established three rules to resolve these problems, namely the literal, golden and mischief rules. The literal rule was developed two hundred years ago and it is based on the strict constitutional notion of Parliamentary supremacy. Arguably, an absurd result was achieved in Fisher v Bell (the flick-knives case) ...read more.

Middle

That said, the starting point to interpretation is that judges should, in the words of Lord Reid, 'look at the natural and ordinary meaning of that word or phrase in its context in the statute' in interpreting same (Pinner v Everett). Further, in line with the purposive approach, words in an Act may be added or omitted to give effect to the intentions of Parliament. However, there are strict rules which were laid down in Inco Europe. Here, Lord Nicholls stated that the court must be abundantly sure of the intended purpose of the statute; that by mistake Parliament failed to give effect to that purpose; and, crucially, the substance of the wording that Parliament would have used. The golden rule was developed in the nineteenth century. ...read more.

Conclusion

It permits judges to interpret a statute quite widely where the intention of the statute has been to put an end to some mischief. The limits of this rule have never been laid out, though in Jones v Wrotham Park Settled Estates, Lord Diplock laid out three circumstances where it may apply: if it is possible to determine from the Act the precise mischief that the Act was to remedy; if it was an accident that the mischief had not been resolved by the Act's literal meaning; and if it is possible to say with certainty what additional words would have been inserted by draftsmen and approved by Parliament. The rule was used to gain a conviction under the Street Offences Act 1959 in Smith v Hughes. how a person is found guilty they use different approaches. These are used in different situations. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Sources of Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Sources of Law essays

  1. Free essay

    heirachy of civil courts

    they only hear appeals), with the divisional court of the family division hearing appeals from the magistrates courts in matrimonial cases, the divisional court of the chancery division hearing appeals on bankruptcy cases from county courts outside London, and the bankruptcy court of the chancery division hearing bankruptcy appeals from London.

  2. The most conventional meaning of the 'legislative supremacy of Parliament' was adopted by Dicey

    They appealed to the HL which held that as a matter of English law, the courts did not have the jurisdiction to grant relief displaying the Act. The HL referred to the ECJ the question whether as a matter of Community law, the relief could be granted.

  1. Statutory interpretation

    Lord Denning however argued in (Davis v Johnson, 1979), that to not use Hansard "would be to grope around in the dark for the meaning of an act without switching the light on". However at this stage the House of Lords ruled that judges shouldn't use Hansard when interpreting a statute.

  2. Statutory Interpretation

    If judge adopt literal rule to interpret this then Beatrice did not commit any offence. It can be argued that wearing yellow stockings in public place is an offence according to statute but she was wearing stockings with equal width stripes of yellow and blue which is not an offence .

  1. Statutory interpretation

    These include aids found outside the statutes such as dictionaries and other explanatory notes. The most significant aid, highlighted by the quote is the use of 'Hansard', which records everything said in the parliament when the bill was being debated. Prior to 1993 judges were not allowed to use Hansard.

  2. Statutory Interpretation

    Lastly - the mischief rule; if the words of a piece of legislation are uncertain or ambiguous the court will adopt the meaning most likely to give effect tot the intention of Parliament. This rule should only be applied if a literal interpretation does not produce a result.

  1. domestic violence -applying the Grenadian statute

    In section 4 (1)(d) of the Barbados Domestic Violence (Protection Order) Cap 130A, provision is made for a person other than a person mentioned in paragraph (a), as agent for a person to whom that paragraph applies to bring an action.

  2. Statutory Interpretation

    Problems faced due to the application of the literal approach are: * Some words had double meanings and the courts found it hard to choose the correct one * Sometimes the wording of the statute was vague * Often it was seen that statues were erroneous, and it's interpretation led

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work