1087826
Description
Flashcards by Fionnuala Mendha, updated more than 1 year ago
|
Created by Fionnuala Mendha
almost 10 years ago
|
|
| Question | Answer |
| What are the Primary Rules of Statutory Interpretation? | Mischief Rule Literal Rule Golden Rule Purposive Approach |
| Heydon's Case | The first use of the Mischief rule to interpret statutes |
| What are the 4 questions to ask when using the mischief rule? | 1) What was the common law before the act? 2) What was the mischief which requires legislation? 3) What remedy is provided by the act? 4) What is the rationale for the remedy? |
| What are the 4 aims of the Judge's interpretation? | 1) Suppress the mischief 2) Advance the remedy 3) Suppress behaviour which continues the mischief 4) Advance the remedy in line with true intention |
| Gorris v Scott | Sheep were washed overboard due to negligence which was detailed in the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act 1869. The Act was intended to stop spread of diseases not to stop losing sheep to the sea. |
| Leadbetter v Hutcheson | The Tweed Fishing Act 1859 said that salmon from any 'boat, cart, basket or package' may be forfeited. Held that cart was applicable to bike and sidecar. |
| What was the situation regarding the Mischief rule in the 16th century? | There was very little parliamentary supremacy or detailed legislation. The courts had a large role in identifying the mischief and interpreting the act. It was much more accessible for the courts. |
| When did Parliament become supreme? | After the 1688 revolution. |
| What happened when Parliament became supreme? | It became more powerful, created more legislation and more complicated legislation. There was more weight on the intention of parliament and the mischief rule became less satisfactory. |
| Why did the literal rule get introduced? | It superseded the mischief rule due to an increase in specific legislation. |
| What is the literal rule? | It is looking at the exact words of parliament not their intention. |
| Ayrshire Employers Mutual Insurance v IRC | Literal rule looks at exact words NOT meaning |
| R v Harris | Accused bit off the victims nose but conviction was quashed as the relevant statute said 'cut, stab or wound.' |
| Fisher v Bell | Display of a flick knife in a shop window. It was forbidden to sell or hire or offer to sell or hire however a display in a window is an invitation to treat not an offer. |
| Keane v Gallacher | Accused convicted for possessing an unusable amount (11 mgs cannabis resin). Proof that the literal rule does not always produce a reasonable result. |
| 5 advantages of the mischief rule | Parliament can easily amend wording Limits judicial Discretion Increased precision and formality More democratic In keeping with Parliamentary Supremacy |
| 4 disadvantages to the literal rule | Produces absurdities. Doesn't help to further justice. Lack of checking on parliament's actions. Legislation is too detailed so courts cannot spend time interpreting the meaning. |
| Why was the Golden rule introduced? | Due to the absurdities produced by the literal rule |
| K v Craig | The literal rule meant that someone would be released from a mental hospital, absurd result in context. |
| What is an absurdity? | An absurdity can be interpreted differently by different judges. It could be an unjust result or not appropriate in the context of the statute. |
| What is the Golden Rule? | If the literal rule produces an absurdity you should instead look at the rest of the Act in context in order to interpret the meaning. |
| Stock v Frank Jones (Tipton) Ltd | Only depart from the literal rule when: There is a clear and gross anomaly Parliament could not or would not have accepted the anomaly You can solve the problem without detriment to intention of Parliament The language allows modifications |
| River Wear Commissioners v Adamson | Classic definition by Lord Blackburn |
| What is the purposive approach? | A modern version of the mischief rule. It is to determine the general legislative purpose underlying the provision by looking at the history of the Act. |
| European Communities Act s(3) | Uk courts should interpret EU law by using the purposive approach. |
| Pepper v Hart | The government were trying to tax a group of teachers who got a concession on school fees for their children. Due to a comment in a debate on the Finance Act disregarding this tax, the purposive approach was held and they were not taxed. |
| What is the current status of law? | Using a combination of all 3 rules such as in R v Cockburn |
Want to create your own Flashcards for free with GoConqr? Learn more.