the interpretation act 1978, was introduced and helped the judicial capacity to interpret the statutes. the act provide certain standard definition of common provisions, such as the rule that the singular includes the plural and 'he' includes 'she'.a further source of help had been provided since the beginning of the year 1999where all legislation must be co-published with an explanatory notes to further help lay the intention of the parlaiment. apart from this ,it has been left to the court to decide what method to use to interpret statutes.
one of the method being used is the literal rule.this rule where the judges strictly use the natural meaning of the words in a statute in their interpretation of a case. IN LONDON AND NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY . CO V BERRIMAN. a railway worker was killed by a train , and his widow attempted to claim for damages . the relevant statute provide that this was available to employees killed while engaging in "relaying or repairing" track. while the dead man had been doing routine of "maintenance and oiling' track. this matter creating injustice where parliament probable never intended any. however , the advantage of using this rule is that parliament sovereignty are protected.
the golden rule provides that if the literal rule gives an absurb result, then the judge can substitute a reasonable meaning in the statute. In MADDOX V STORER under the TRAFFIC ROAD ACT 1960, it was an offence to drive at more than 30mph in a vehicle "adopted to carry more than 7 passengers '' . while the vehicle in this case was a mini bus made to carry 11 passengers , rather than altered to do so , and the court held that " adapted to " could be taken to mean " suitable for ". the rule clearly prevent the absurdity and injustice cause by the literal rule, and help the courts put into practice what parliament really meant. however there is a negative side of this rule . the golden rule turns out to be less explicit.
following rule will be the mischief rule. this rule was laid during heydon's case and provides that judges should consider factors , what the law before the statute was passed, what problem ,or ' mischief', the statute trying to remedy and what remedy parliament was trying to provide.
In SMITH V HUGHES . 6 women had been charged with soliciting " in a street or public place for the purpose of prostitution". however , 1 women had been on a balcony and other behind the window of ground floor rooms. the court held they were guilty because the mischief aimed at was people being molested or solicited by prostitutes. the rule avoid absurdity and injustice and promotes flexibility.
the purposive approach is preferred to statutory interpretation was to look for the statute's literal meaning. this approach is one that will " promote the general legislative purpose underlying the provisions".In ROYAL COLLEGE OF NURSING V DHSS . the court had to decide if nurses could lawfully continue an abortion started by a " registered medical practitioner" .although Lord diplock referred to the mischief of illegal abortions , lord keith referred to the purposive of the abortion act 1967, which was to ensure that socially acceptable abortions were carried out in safe conditions. the HoL held that the procedure was lawful.
which ever approach the judges take statutory interpretation, they have at their disposal a range of material to help them into interpreting a statute certain rules of languages commonly applied in statutory texts where are called the internal aids. the explanatory notes provides an explanation on the act which help judges to interpret the statutes. rules of language which includes the general , specific and contextual meaning of words are little more than common sense , despite their intimidating names in interpreting the legislation.
external aids directs the judges using the mischief rule.sources including the historical setting of the provision that is being interpreted as well as other statutes dealing with the same subjects. dictionaries and text books may be consulted to find the meaning of a word . previous practice that is the general practice and commercial usage in the field covered by the legislation may shed light on the meaning of a statutory term. and lastly the most important aids will be handsard. handsard is the daily report of parliament debates , and therefore a record od what was said during the introduction of legislation . for over 100 years, the judiciary held that such documents could not be consulted for the purpose of statutory interpretation . however in PEPPER V HART case the HOL uses this aid to interpret the statute.
in my conclusion, it can be deduced that statutory interpretation has many aids and rules to help judges interpret the statute when the statute turns to be absurd or ambiguous.
haha found a way to memorize my law ... don be bored of this ... u need to read it as to gain some knowledge .
No comments:
Post a Comment