Arguing about Authority

Question 1

What does it mean to argue about authority?

Answer 1

we have to determine what it is that the authoritative directive really requires, it’s true nature

this arises when the content of the authority isn’t clear

Question 2

Give an important case example where the idea of arguing about authority was challenged

Answer 2

R v Liggets-Findlay Drug Stores [1919]

• a Canadian by-law stated that ‘all drug shops shall be closed at 10pm on each and every night of the week’
• at first sight looks unproblematic
• but consider if the defendants shut their shop at 10pm but opened it a few minutes later

Question 3

What kinds of reasons can we (in principle) turn to when arguing about authority? What are these called? Give the three kinds

Answer 3

• called canons of statutory construction
• the literal rule (the plain or ordinary meaning of the words used in the provision)
• the golden rule (the consequences of adopting a certain interpretation over another)
• the mischief rule (the purpose of the provision being interpreted

Question 4

In what way are canons often referred to by the courts?

Answer 4

as matters of common sense

Question 5

Give an example of a case which deals with the three canons of statutory construction

Answer 5

Crofts v Taylor [1887] 19 QBD 524

Section 8(2) of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act 1885
"A dealer in or retailer of beer shall not adulterate or dilute beer..."