law making: statutory interpretation Flashcards
why do we need statutory interpretation?
- meaning of law ( acts of parliament ) need to be clear and explicit but this isnt always achieved. in order to help with the understanding of a statute parliament includes sections defining certain words used in that statute. these sections are called interpretation sections. e.g = theft act 1968 , the definition of theft is given in s1 and the ss2-6 define the key words in that definition
what has parliament passed to help judges with general words and what does it make clear ?
- passed the interpretation act 1978 which makes it clear that , unless the contrary appears, he includes she and singular includes plural
what is the courts tasks when a dispute over the meaning of an act of parliament?
task is to decide the exact meaning of a particular word or phrase.
what are the reasons why a meaning may not be clear?
- a broad term
- ambiguity
- drafting error
- new developments
- changes in the use of language
Why would a broad terms meaning not be clear ?
- these are words that are designed to cover several possibilities therefore it can lead to problems as to how wide this should go. e.g dangerous dogs act 1991 there is a phrase “any dog of the type known as the pit bull terrier “ . its a simple phrase but led to questions such as “ what is meant by “type” Does it mean the same as breed?” - it could cover dogs were not pedigree pit bull terriers but had a substantial number of characteristics of such a dog.
whats ambiguity?
this is were a word has two or more meanings and it may not be clear which meaning should be used
whats a drafting error?
the parliamentary counsel who drafts the original bill may have made an error which hasnt been noticed by the parliament -
broad term - when is the problem likely to occur?
likely to occur in a bill that has been amended many times while going through parliament. + when old acts are brought together in one act as a result there may be differences in the wording of the sections which causes confusion
broad term - where is it shown?
and what was stated about it ?
shown in s20 + s 18 oapa uses the word “cause” while s20 uses the word “inflict” - sections concerned with gbh. caused problems to interpret in courts. - in r v burstow (1997) house of lords stated that altho words didnt have the same exact meaniing , it would be “absurd” to differentiate between s 18 and s20
what is meant by new developments?
when is it seen in?
- may mean that an old act of parliament does not apparently cover present day situations which is seen in the case of royal college of nursing v DHSS (1997) where medical science and methods had changed since the passing of the abortion act in 1967
what is meant by changes in the use of language ?
- meaning of words can change throughout the years and this was a problem in the case of Cheeseman v dpp (1990).
what are the three rules?
- the literal rule
- the golden rule
- the mischief rule
can an interpretation of a statute differ?
it can differ depending on what rule the judge who hears the case decides the rule to use.
what can happen once an interpretation is laid down?
- it may then form a precedent for future cases under the normal rules of judicial precedent. since the three rules can result in very different decisions, it is important to understand them
what is the definition of literal rule?
under the literal rule , courts will give words their plain ordinary or literal meaning, even if the result is not very sensible.
