Karteikarten
Statutory Interpretation
Karten in diesem Stapel (20)
- 1Why is statutory interpretation necessary? (5)- Broad term: Dangerous Dogs Act
- Ambiguity: not clear which meaning to use
- A drafting error: Bill amended several times
- New development: RCN v DHSS
- Change in the use of language: Cheeseman - 2Literal Rule (3)- based on plain, grammatical meaning
- "The Court has nothing to do with the question whether the legislature has committed an absurdity"
- First rule of interpretation; still a starting point - 3Cases that show: - Absurdity - Harsh/unjust outcome- Whiteley v Chappell: D charged for impersonating someone 'entitled to vote', but dead.
- Berriman: claim failed because 'maintenance' not 'relaying or repairing' - 4Cases that show: - Ignores the purpose - Several meaning- Cheeseman: police officers not 'passengers', but purpose ignored
- Fisher v Bell: technical meaning used so displaying flicker knife not 'offer to sale' - 53 Advantages of using Literal Rule- Parliament is law-making body, so it is appropriate that judges apply law as it is written
- Prevents unelected judges from making law (doctrine of separation)
- Makes law more certain and easier for people to know what the law is - 63 Disadvantages of using Literal Rule- Assumes every Act will be perfectly drafted
e.g. Whiteley (cover all sits X)
- Act is unclear or has several meanings, so may ignore the purpose drafted
- Leads to unjust or absurd decision e.g. Berriman - 7Golden Rule (definition and 2 cases)- Modification of Literal Rule; court can apply the secondary meaning if the outcome of using the literal rule is likely to be absurd/ repugnant
- Narrow application: Adler v George - 'in the vicinity'
- Wide app: Re Sigsworth - repugnant sit X & wrote into the Act - 83 Advantages of using Golden Rule- Respects exact words of Parliament to some extent
- Provides escape route form unjust outcome
- Allows judges to choose most sensible meaning, so repugnant result prevented - 93 Disadvantages of using Golden Rule- Very limited in use and rarely used e.g. Zander: 'feeble parachute'
- Not possible to predict when the court will use - reduces certainty
- Allows judicial law-making e.g. Re Sigsworth - 10Mischief Rule - definition and two uses- Interpreting in such a way that the gap in the common law which the Act intended to remedy is covered (Heydon's Case)
- Considering the mischief aimed: Smith v Hughes - matter X prostitute were in a street
- Technology change: RCN v DHSS - 113 Advantages of Mischief Rule- Promotes the purpose: sees what Parliament wanted to acheive
- Focus on filling the gap: under guidelines, not their own views & just
- Law Commission prefers this - 124 Disadvantages of Mischief Rule- Judicial law-making: even more discretion to the judges & not respecting Parliament
-Judges have different views: RCN v DHSS - dissenting judges: 'redrafting it with a vengeance'
- Uncertainty
- Not as wide as Purposive Approach - 13Purposive Approach (3 cases)- Judges decide what the believe Parliament want to achieve: Lord Denning - "filling in the gaps and making sense of enactment" in RDC v Newport Corp
- R v Registar-General: risk to the natural mother (does not promote crime)
- New tech: R (Quintaville) v Sec of State - 143 Advantages of Purposive Approach- Promotes justice: R v Registar-General
- Broader approach, so covers wider range of situations
- Useful when new technology comes out, otherwise Parliament have to pass an Act - 153 Disadvantages of Purposive Approach- Uncertainty
- Difficult to discover the intention of Parliament - Hansard used, but not really right to guess the conclusion based on it
- Unelected judges make law - 16When is Hansard used? (and 2 cases)- Pepper v Hart overruling Davis v Johnson:
only used if when Act is ambiguous or obscure//there is a clear statement by Minister in the Hansard
- If Act introduces international convention or EU Directive (Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England) - 17Other extrinsic aids (4)- Law Reform Report: to find gap in the law, Black Clawson
- International Conventions: Fothergill v Monarch Airline
- Dictionary of the time: Cheeseman v DPP
- Historical setting: Brock v DPP - 18Case that illustrates the effect of Human Rights Act 1998 on the interpretation of statutesMendoza v Ghaidan: intepreted in accordance to ECHR on passing tenancy to same sex partner
- 193 Rules of language and cases- Ejusdem Generis: list of two or more words generalise the meaning of the generic word
-> Powell v Kempton Race Course
- Expressio Unius Exclusio Alterius:
Tempest v Kilner
- Noscitur a sociis: words considered by the context (the whole Act): Frere - 204 Presumptions (if the statute clearly states the opposite, then are rebutted)- Against a change in common law: Leach v R = wife not compelled to give evidence against her husband
- Mens rea (intention) is required in criminal cases: Sweet v Parsley - know X cannabis
- Crown is not bound by any statute usually
- Apply X retrospectively
Informationen
- Beschreibung
- AS - Level Law (G152 Sources Of Law) Karteikarten am Statutory Interpretation, erstellt von Field Jellyfish am 18/05/2016.
- Erstellt von
- Field Jellyfish
- Aufrufe
- 0
- Bewertung