Purpossive Approach

Question 1

Purposive Approach advantage 1

Answer 1

Issue: One advantage is that it avoids absurd decisions.
• Cause: This is because judges can ignore the strict words in an Act and choose sensible wording which puts Parliament’s true intention into effect.
• Example: In Jones v TBC, it would have been absurd for D to not be liable for the racism in his workplace due to a technicality about being in the ‘course of employment’. By ignoring the words of the Act, the court prevented discrimination which is the result Parliament wanted.
• Consequence: This is an advantage because it means justice will be served in situations where D really should be guilty.

Question 2

Purposive Approach Advantage 2

Answer 2

Issue: Allows for social, economic, and technological change. • Cause: Because judges can ignore the strict words in an Act and choose a meaning that keeps a statute up to date with
society and technology.
• Example: In RCN v DHSS, medicine had evolved since the Abortion Act. Judges could keep the Abortion Act relevant and up to date by allowing nurses to carry out abortions too. This met Parliament’s purpose of making abortions safer.
• Consequence: This is an advantage because it means the law can be kept modern and sensible, and apply widely to different cases.

Question 3

Purposive Approach Advantage 3

Answer 3

Issue: One advantage of the purposive approach is that it is
modern approach that saves Parliament time.
• Cause: This is because judges can arrive at the decision
Parliament would make if it were considering the case.
• Example: In 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.
• Consequence: This is an advantage because it allows judges to make sensible decisions and means Parliament does not need to draft a new statute. Instead Parliament can focus its efforts elsewhere.

Question 4

Purposive Approach Disadvantage

Answer 4

Issue: A disadvantage is it creates uncertainty.
• Cause: This is because judges may disagree on what the purpose of an Act/Parliament’s intention actually was.
• Example: In R v RG ex parte Smith, some judges may have felt Parliament’s clear wording meant that they wanted D to get his birth certificate in all circumstances.
• Consequence: This is bad because it leads to inconsistent decisions and lawyers and defendants will be unable to prepare properly for their cases

Question 5

Purposive Approach Disadvantage 2

Answer 5

Issue: A disadvantage is that it can erode Parliamentary
Supremacy.
• Cause: This is because judges can make up what they think
Parliament wanted and so ignore what the Act actually says.
• Example: In R v RG ex Parte Smith, the judge decided to not give the birth certificate despite the wording ‘shall supply’ being very clear that D should have it in all circumstances.
• Consequence: This is bad because it is Parliament’s job, not a judge’s, to make the law due to them being elected and representing society.

Question 6

Purposive approach disadvantage 3

Answer 6

Issue: A disadvantage is it makes judges too powerful.
• Cause: This is because there are no guidelines on how/when to use it.
• Example: In R v Clinton, judges completed ignored the clear wording in an Act which says that sexual infidelity CANNOT reduce a murder charge to manslaughter. They chose to drop Mr Clinton’s murder charge to manslaughter.
• Consequence: Judges call into question Parliament’s role as senior UK law making body. Creates the risk of unelected judges deciding what is in the best interests of the public, when this should be the job of Parliament.