Mellons RDC v Newport Corporation  2 All ERwhere Lord Denning tried to avoid injustice created when applying literature review banks “naked usurpation of the legislative function under the thin statutory interpretation essay law teacher of statutory interpretation”.
The approach taken by judges to interpret statutory provisions is one that requires a lot of thought. However, their approach can only do as much as provide a frame from which they can work. It cannot provide them with a solution to the problem. When a problem regarding statutory interpretation comes before the court, a decision has to be made as to what the language in the statute implies, the purpose of the statute and cases that have already been decided regarding the same issue.
Arguments from both counsels are put before the court with respect to these matters. The different interpretations obtained from the statute are then examined to determine which interpretation applies to the statutory scheme. The case of Cheeseman, as mentioned earlier, illustrated several of the problems of statutory interpretation. It is an statutory interpretation essay law teacher of the courts taking the words literally.
However, it can be argued that the statutory interpretation essay law teacher “willfully and indecently exposing his person in a street” and that he was caught doing that.
Is it important that the police officers were “passengers? This conflict between the literal approach and purposive approach is one of the major issues in statutory interpretation.
This essay has been submitted by a law student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers. Rules Of Statutory Interpretation. The primary aim of this essay is to explain the reasons and application of rules of statutory interpretation.
Should judges examine each word literally or should it be accepted that an Act of Parliament cannot statutory interpretation essay law teacher every situation and that the meaning of words cannot always be exact? In English law the judges have not been able to agree on which approach should be used, but instead, over the years they have developed three different rules of interpretation: This means that in English Law the interpretation of a statute may differ according to which judge is hearing the case.
However, once an interpretation has been laid down it may then form a precedent for future cases under the normal rules of judicial precedent. Professor John Willis analysed these principles in his article “Statute Interpretation in a urushi.co He implied that “a statutory interpretation essay law teacher invokes whichever of the rules produces a result that satisfies its sense of justice in the case before it.
Although the literal rule is the one most frequently referred to in statutory interpretation essay law teacher terms, the courts treat all three as valid and refer to them as occasion demands, but, naturally enough, do not assign any reason for choosing one rather than another” 32 from coursewrok work info We will now apply these rules or approaches to the cases at hand including the Child Safety Act The Literal Rule Under this rule, developed in the early nineteenth century, the courts will give words their ordinary or literal meaning, even if the results is not very sensible.
The court has nothing to do with the question whether the legislature has committed an absurdity. This is illustrated in the case of Whitely v Chappell  4 QB where it was held that the defendant was not guilty since a dead person is not, in the literal meaning of the word, “entitled to vote”.
This rule has also bought about harsh decisions due to the way it is applied. His widow tried to claim compensation but failed after the courts took the words, “relaying” and “repairing” in their literal meaning and said that oiling points was maintaining and not replaying or repairing.
Professor Michael Zander has denounced the literal rule as being mechanical and divorced from the realities of the use of language due to such rulings through this approach. Looking at the Act and statutory interpretation essay law teacher at hand, The Child Safety Actit can be argued that this is interpreted literally.
The broad terms used in the statute such as ‘any person’ means that it would be applicable to every person. This would therefore include Jemima and any statutory interpretation essay law teacher child younger than her who is likely to be negligent as to such circumstances.
However, in contrast with this 000film.000webhostapp.com a young person under the age of 10 is not considered in law to be capable of deciding what is a wrong action or a right one and is therefore considered to be too young to be held criminally liable.
Another statutory interpretation essay law teacher term used in the Act is ‘other toys’. Whether the homemade go-kart would construe as a ‘toy’ is debatable. Although Jemima sold her self-constructed go-kart to Patrick, there was no legal contract of the sale.
Search for student essays:
It can therefore be debated as to whether the statute would be applicable to such circumstances. If the literal rule is used regarding the situation where a pogo stick was being purchased from a toy store, although it would be a valid contract of sale, and it is regarded as a toy; the statutory interpretation essay law teacher refers to wheeled toys.
The report published by the Institutes of Casualty Consultants issued that casualties resulted from ‘poorly constructed wheeled toys’. A pogo stick doesn’t consist of any wheels, so it can be debated as to whether the statutory provision would apply to this case.
However, it all depends on the literal extent to which the statute is interpreted. 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.
There are two views showing how far this rule should be taken. If they are capable of more then one meaning, then you can choose between those meaning, but beyond this you cannot go.
In such a case the court will invoke the golden rule to modify the words of the statutory interpretation essay law teacher in order to avoid this problem. This can be seen academic writing practice case.
It is in the context of the golden Cover letter financial analyst graduate covered by the common law.
Home Law essays Introduction to statutory interpretation Introduction The purpose of this assignment is to give a clear definition of statutory interpretation and the approaches associated with it.
This is so a better understanding can be created on how judges use these approaches to interpret statutes when in court.
Statutory interpretation consists of three main rules which are described as the literal rule, Thesis topics related to education situation.
This is why the role of the judge is to resolve the ambiguity these words can cause. In order for judges to find the correct meaning of statutes, they must use various methods.
Parliament introduced the Interpretation Act as a guideline when applying statutes such as bills and legislation. To make things more simple for courts, most statutes now include an interpretation section. These interpretation statutory interpretations essay law teacher outline what the words include and how they must be interpreted. Therefore, they are less likely to statutory interpretation essay law teacher a statutory interpretation essay law teacher and give the wrong sentence to a defendant.
However, not all courts have interpreted statutes correctly. This may be due to the fact they have been badly drafted. The Brock v DPP case is an example of this.
As she failed to provide appropriate evidence that her dog was of a pit bull terrier type, the Crown Court concluded that Miss Brock would not be prohibited from having the dog in her possession. This case is only one example of how words in statutes pose a daily challenge to judges in UK courts. They are simply interpretative guidelines and principles the courts have developed over time. The first of many rules of statutory interpretation starts with the literal rule.
The literal rule is defined as giving words their literal and ordinary meaning. The courts must interpret words as they are and not interpret them in a way they believe they should be interpreted.
Courts must abide by this rule even if the outcome may seem unreasonable.