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

    Lord Bridge consequently gave judgement in Factortame (No 2), and addressed the question to the effect of the decision towards the supremacy of Parliament. He stated; ''........ whatever limitation of its sovereignty Parliament accepted when it enacted the European Communities Act 1972 was entirely voluntary.

  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. Statutory Interpretation

    entitled to vote. ABSURD RESULT Fisher v Bell (1961) * Offence was 'To sell or to offer for sale any flick-knife...' * Offensive weapons act 1959 * Knives were displayed in a shop window * The question was, whether the defendant was offering for sale.

  2. Statutory interpretation

    Hansard is the official daily reports and debates in Parliament proceedings and so could help a judge to clarify the meaning of an act. There was originally a rule that meant that Hansard couldn't be used to aid judge's decisions as going through Hansard was a slow process and it was often unclear.

  1. 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

  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. Free essay

    heirachy of civil courts

    Is also hears appeals about decisions made by the tribunals services which you will find out about further through the lesson. In addition, s you will find out in the next lesson, it hears appeals in some criminal cases. Although originally divided fro administrative purposes into five divisions: queens bench

  2. Describe and illustrate the various approaches a judge may use to decide the meaning ...

    The remedy to an eventual absurdity of taking the literal meaning would then come from parliamentary amendment and not judicial interpretation. E.g. Whitely V Chappell 1868 when it was held that impersonating a person who was deceased did not amount to the offence of impersonating someone entitled to vote at an election because dead people are not entitled to vote.

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