Purposive Approach

Purposive Approach

1. Advantages

   • Avoids absurd decisions
     • Judges can ignore the strict words in an Act and put Parliament's true intention into effect
       • Jones v TBC - would have been absurd for D to not be liable for the racism in his workplace due to it not being technically in the 'course of employment'. Ignoring the words meant the court prevented discrimination and carry out Parliament's intention
         • Advantage - means justice will be served in situations where D really should(n't) be guilty, but wording would otherwise lead to a bad decision
   • Allows for social, economic and technological change
     • Judges can ignore the strict words in an Act and put Parliament's true intention into effect
       • RCN v DHSS - medicine and society had changed since the Abortion Act and Parliament's purpose of making abortions safer could be fulfilled by allowing nurses to help with the procedure
         • Advantage - means the law can be kept modern and sensible, and apply widely to different cases
   • A modern approach that saves Parliament time
     • Judges can arrive at the decision Parliament would make if it were considering the case
       • Jones v TBC - Parliament didn't have to make a new statute to address racial harassment, the court could recognise what Parliament would want and so put that intention into effect
         • Advantage - it allows judges to make sensible decisions and lets Parliament focus efforts elsewhere

2. Disadvantages

   • Creates uncertainty in the law
     • Judges may disagree on what the purpose of an Act/Parliament's intention actually was.
       • R v RG ex parte Smith - judges decided to not give the birth certificate despite the wording 'shall supply' being very clear that D should have it in any circumstance
         • Disadvantage - Parliament's job, not a judge's, to make the law due to them being elected and representing society
   • Erodes Parliamentary supremacy
     • Judges can make up what they think Parliament wanted and so ignore what the Act actually says
       • R v RG ex parte Smith - Judge decided to not give the birth certificate despite the wording 'shall supply' being very clear that D should have it in all circumstances
         • Disadvantage - Parliament's job, not a judge's, to make the law due to them being elected and representing society
   • Judiciary too powerful
     • Lord Simmonds said judges basically end up making the law and just call it interpretation
       • R v RG ex parte Smith - judges went against the Adoption Act which said the Reg Gen 'shall supply' the birth certificate and refused to give it to Mr. Smith
         • Disadvantage - the best people to decide Parliament's intention/what is best for society is Parliament, and so judges maybe making undemocratic and incorrect decisions