Statutory interpretation Flashcards
What is statutory interpretation?
When Judges give meaning to the unclear words and phrases in a statute, and clarify what it statute means so it can be applied to resolve the dispute before them.
When doing so, judges can broaden or narrow its meaning.
However, the judge’s interpretation of a statute provides only a statement about the meaning and application of the statute. It does not change the actual words or phrases in the statute itself.
When does statutory interpretation occur?
This occurs when there is a dispute over the meaning of the words and phrases contained in an Act of Parliament and the case is brought before the courts to be resolved.
what can Statutory interpretation do?
Depending on the superiority of the court, the legal reasoning behind the judge’s interpretation may set a legal principle (or precedent) that can be followed in future similar cases.
The newly established precedent becomes a part of the law and will be read along with the statute in future cases.
Reasons for statutory interpretation
Courts may be required to interpret legislation to resolve problems that occur during the drafting process, or to resolve problems that occur when a court is applying the Act of Parliament to resolve a case.
Problems occurring during the drafting process:
The complexities involved in drafting legislation mean that inevitably some terms and phrases used will be unclear and in need of interpretation before they can be applied to resolve the case before the courts.
Different problems that can occur during drafting process?
- the bill might not have taken future circumstances into account (eg. use of technology unspecified)
- the intention of the bill might not have been clearly expressed (purpose not clearly expressed lead to confusion)
- mistakes in the drafting of a bill. (may be minor or more technical eg: missed words, punctuation, use of pronouns)
Different problems that can occur during application of statutes?
- most legislation drafted in general terms (terms used so broad that need to be interpreted to be applied to specific circumstances) eg. studded belt case a regulated weapon?
- act may become out of date & no longer reflect community values (eg. obscene & offensive language changed overtime)
- meaning of the words may be ambiguous (interpret words & phrases to determine meaning according to statute’s intention)
- act may be silent on an issue and courts may need to fill gap (statute doesn’t cover all possible situations)
- meaning of words change overtime eg. currency/money now extend to digital currency
Effects of statutory interpretation
- The word or phrases contained in the disputed legislation are given meaning.
- The court’s decision on the meaning of the legislation is binding on the parties.
- A precedent may be set for future cases to follow.
- The meaning of the legislation (law) can be restricted or expanded.
Effect 1: Given meaning
This is so that the relevant statute can be applied to resolve the case before the court. The meaning of the legislation as determined by the court will also provide guidance for parties involved in a dispute in relation to the same word or phrase.
Effect 2: The court’s decision on the meaning of the legislation is binding on the parties.
Once a court has reached a decision on the meaning of a statute, the parties to the case are bound by that decision unless one of the parties lodges a successful appeal against the decision
Effect 3: A precedent may be set for future cases
If the interpretation of the words and phrases in legislation is made by a superior court (e.g. the Supreme Court or High Court), the reason for the decision forms a precedent that is then read together with the Act of Parliament to determine the outcome of future cases and will remain that way unless changed by higher court on appeal or abrogated (cancelled) by an Act of Parliament.
(Although parliament cannot abrogate (cancel) a High Court decision involving constitutional matters)
Effect 4: The meaning of the legislation can be restricted or expanded
If a court interprets a word or phrase narrowly, this could restrict the scope of the law. For example, the decision in Deing v Tarola restricted the definition of a regulated weapon to items likely to be used for an offensive or aggressive purpose only.
Similarly, a broad interpretation of a word or phrase in a statute can extend the meaning of legislation to cover a wider range of circumstances or new area of law.
