The Purposive Approach Evaluation Flashcards
ADVANTAGE NO.1
[Allows for Individual Justice]
One advantage is that it allows for justice in the individual cases. The law can be considered in a way that covers lots more situations which is an advantage as it allows for the most appropriate outcome.
(Maunsell v Olins)
ADVANTAGE NO.2
[Modern Approach]
Another advantage is that it is a modern approach. It is a useful approach where there is new technology that was not around at the time of the statute.
(Quintavalle’s Case)
ADVANTAGE NO.3
[Avoids Unfair Results]
Also, it avoids unfair results. This approach prioritises avoiding repugnant results in cases to uplift justice whilst still respects parliament’s wishes.
(R v Registrar - General Ex Parte Smith)
ADVANTAGE NO.4
[Consistency Across Europe]
One final advantage is that it allows for consistency across Europe. As this approach is popular amongst the European Union, it provides consistency across European Countries.
Lord Denning said in Bulmer v Bollinger: ‘no longer must they examine the words in meticulous detail, they must look at the purpose of intent of the act’.
Maunsell v Olins
The House of Lords used the Purposive Approach to decide that a cottage on farm land was premise under the Rents Act 1968. This decision was based on looking at why the Rents Act was passed, which was to give better rights to tenants.
R v Registrar - General Ex Parte Smith
A convicted murderer attempted apply to the court to receive the details of his birth mother. Despite the unambiguous wording of the statute, the court found that parliament would not have intended for this situation as due to the son’s violent nature, his mother may be put in danger if he receives the information of his mother.
DISADVANTAGE NO.1
[Disrespects Parliament]
One disadvantage is that it disrespects parliament. This approach gives considerable power to unelected judges to interpret the wishes of parliament.
(R v Registrar - General Ex Parte Smith: created a new rule without consulting parliament)
DISADVANATGE NO.2
[Inconsistent]
Another disadvantage is that it can be inconsistent. This approach allows for different judges to interpret the law in different ways,
(Maunsell v Olins: 2 judges voted against it)
DISADVANTAGE NO.3
[Cost]
Also, using this approach may be costly. The cost of researching the background to a case by looking at things such as Hansard may increase the expense of court cases.
For example, looking at Hansard, the word-by-word script of everything said in the House of Commons, takes a long time to properly consider the purpose of a statute. Ministers can cumulatively debate for hours and hours and it can be hard to gauge what the majority of members actually believed.
DISADVANTAGE NO.4
[Difficult to Find Purpose]
Finally, it can be difficult to find parliament’s intentions. Looking at what the promoters of the bill usually does not reflect the exact views of the majority of parliament. Members may speak out against/for the bill and then change their mind later on in the process.
In Pepper v Haut, the House of Lords allowed judges to view Hansard but only on three strict situations as viewing Hansard may be misleading at it does not give a reflective view of what the majority of parliament intended to do when passing the law.
