People and law-makers part.2 Flashcards
Define statutory interpretation
The process whereby courts/judges apply meaning to the words within acts or legislation made by parliament to determine the outcome of a case before them
Why judges may need to interpret statute
The specific meaning of words eg.reasonable
The changing nature of words eg.’man’
Unforeseen circumstances eg. parliament passing legislation quickly during COVID
Outline the facts of the studded belt case
A man was arrested and found guilty in the magi court for the procession of a regulated weapon- his studded belt.
He appealed this decision on a point of law to the Supreme Court T.D
S6 of the control of weapons act (vic) 1990 states that it is illegal to carry or use any regulated weapon without lawful excuse
Appeal succeeded, Sup court set precedent and narrowed the meaning of ‘regulated weapon’
What are the impacts of statutory interpretation
-The interpretation can narrow or broaden the definition of a word
-The interpretation can set a precedent
-The interpretation can influence parliament to amend legislation
Outline 3 strengths of statutory interpretation
-S.I can allow for changes to the law in an efficient and independent manner, judges don’t have political pressures to be re-elected
-Judges are legal experts in the law, they can also rely on resources, precedents outside of their jurisdiction and footnotes
-A decision made by judges can be codified to make stronger legislation and strengthen the precedent set
Outline 3 limitations of statutory interpretation
-Judges must wait for a relevant case with standing to be presented to them before they can use there judicial powers to interpret the law and add meaning to the words
-Individuals with standing may be reluctant to go the the high court or to initiate a court case due to the known costs and delays involved with the process
-Judges are not democratically elected and have a narrow socio-economic group. May not reflect the community values
-Common law can be abrogated by the parliament leading to it being reversed, thus the judges ability to initiate change in the meaning of words may not be long-lasting
Define common law
an area of law that is created based upon decisions of judges rather than Acts of parliament
-Must be made by a judge
-Arise from a case in court
-creates a precedent
Define precedent including key terms
a legal principle that incorporates the reasoning behind a judges decision when making a judgement
-stare decisis- what has been previously created
-ratio decidendi-reason for the decision
-Obiter dictum-statements made by-the-way
What are the reasons for precedents
-Guidance for judges to be a blessing to look back at previous cases to gain an understanding or idea of the legal rational
-Consistency through allowing legal representatives to provide advice for their client on the outcome of their case
-Not wasting court’s resources due to having to preside over the same matter time and time again
What is binding precedent and the elements
A precedent that has to be followed
-made in a higher court
-same jurisdiction
-same material facts
What is persuasive precedent and the elements
Made to advice further cases but not bound to the decision
-originates from a lower court of the same court hierarchy
-originates from the same level of court
-originates from a court outside the jurisdiction
-comment from a judgments that are obiter dictum
What is reversing the precedent
This occurs when a decision is appealed to a higher court and the higher court overturns the original precedent- same case
What is overruling a precedent
This occurs when a superior court overrides a previous precedent established in trial- 2 seperate cases
What is distinguishing a precedent
when a court disagrees with a precedent established at the same level and chooses not to follow it and creates another precedent or when a lower court who is bound to a precedent expresses their disagreement through the obiter dictum but still needs to follow it
What is disapproving a precedent
A judge is bound to follow a precedent but argues that similar material facts does not exist and therefore it would be unfair to apply the same precedent
