- Certainty
With the vast amount of common law, most legal situations have already been dealt with by the courts. This means that the English law is highly predictable. Judges are not expected to create new directions for their juries, they use wording determined by previous precedent. The prosecution knows how a statute is interpreted and how best to prosecute a case.
- Time and Cost savings
As the system is predictable this saves money for 3 main reasons:
- In most criminal cases the defendant pleads guilty
- In civil cases a high proportion results in out of court settlements
- As the law is certain, the English legal system results in relatively few appeals. If the HOL set a precedent there is no point appealing a similar case
c. Precedent produces a consistent legal system
The magistrates court operates out of 700 locations with over 30,000 magistrates, consistency over such a large court can only be achieved by the fact that magistrates all follow decisions of superior courts.
d. Flexibility
Everyday there is a possibility that someone will break the law in a new way. This gives the courts the opportunity to revisit that area of law and question whether or not the law is in need of change. This means that the law is constantly updated. This also means that a statute which has been deliberately vaguely worded is constantly updated and can last for many years without the need for parliament to pass new legislation.
Both common law and the civil law traditions utilize the concept of precedent. No case has a meaning by itself; each case stands in relationship to other cases. Like tracing one’s ancestors, therefore, it is at least theoretically possible to go backwards in time; step by step to see how a complicated principle emerged from perhaps a single case is important in the legal system.
Word count: 548
Question Two: Explain the different approaches taken to statutory interpretation, with case law examples of each.
There are many reasons why the meaning may be unclear. There may be words designed to cover several possibilities, the meaning of a work can change over time and will strong affect the meaning of an Act, due to ambiguity a word may have two or more meanings and it may not be clear on which meaning to use. So it is important to note that parliament makes the law and it’s the courts job to merely interpret and apply it to particular cases and situations. When interpreting the law, Judges have certain approach or rules to assist them in their task.
- The literal rule
Also known as the plain meaning rule, it’s the basic rule which seeks to give the words a meaning which equates with their ordinary meaning in the context of the Act. (Manchester, Salter, Moodie & Lynch, 1996, p33)
Case Law: London & North Eastern Railway Company v Berriman (1946)
This was the case when the railway company was being sued for the death of Mr Berriman by Mr Berrimans wife, when he was killed whilst maintain the tracks, because there was no look out, but it failed because he was maintain the track and not relaying or replacing, therefore a lookout should not have been there. This was an absurd ruling. But the judge’s function was to apply the law and not decide how parliament would go about it.
- The golden rule
This rule is a modification of the literal rule looking at the literal meaning but then the court is allowed to avoid an interpretation which would lead to an absurd decision. (Manchester, Salter, Moodie & Lynch, 1996, p34)
Case Law: Rex v. Sigsworth (1935; Ch 89)
A man murdered his mother. As the only child of the deceased, he is “issue” of the deceased for the purpose of inheriting the estate of the deceased. However, there is a principle of common law that a criminal shall not benefit from his crime. By resorting to the golden rule, Clauson J held that the estate of the deceased mother should not go to the son.
- The mischief rule and purposive approach
Mischief rule is known as the gap rule and is concerned when the words of an act are ambiguous, it allows the courts to take into account previous common law and identify what was the mischief that was not covered by the common law. Once identified it would be possible for courts to read the statute in the light of the mischief. The courts are also permitted to look at material outside the statute. (Manchester, Salter, Moodie & Lynch, 1996, p36)
Case Law: Smith v Hughes (1960) 1 WLR 830
Referred to the Street Offences Act 1959, it was a crime for prostitutes to "loiter or solicit in the street for the purposes of prostitution". The defendants were calling to men in the street from balconies and tapping on windows. They claimed they were not guilty as they were not in the "street". The judge applied the mischief rule to come to the conclusion that they were guilty as the intention of the Act was to cover the mischief of harassment from prostitutes.
The purposive approach is the extension of the mischief rule. But it goes beyond it in that the court is not just looking to see what the gap was in old law but the judges are deciding what they believe parliament meant to achieve. (Manchester, Salter, Moodie & Lynch, 1996, p38)
Word count: 558
- Buang S, 1996, Statutory Interpretation, Central Law Book Corporation Sdn Bhd
- Campbell, E & Lee HP, 2001, The Australian Judiciary, Cambridge University press.
3. Case Law of Rex v. Sigsworth (1935; Ch 89), viewed on 25th Aug 2006, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_rule_(law)〉
4. Case law of Smith v Hughes (1960) 1 WLR 830, Viewed on 25th Aug 2006, <http://www.peterjepson.com/law/CASE_LAW.HTM>
5. Case Law of London & North Eastern Railway Company v Berriman(1946), viewed on 25th Aug 2006, <http://law.ato.gov.au/atolaw/view.htm?DocID=JUD%2F*1946*1AllER255%2F00003>
6. Farrar JH& Dugdale AM, 1990, 3rd edition, Introduction to Legal method, Sweet&Maxwell Ltd. UK.
7. Manchester C, Salter D, Moodie P & Lynch B, 1996, Exploring the law: The Dynamics of Precedent and Statutory Interpretation, Sweet& Maxwell Ltd. UK.
