Case review of Regina Quintavalle v Secretary of State for Health
Name
Institution
Section 3 (3) (d) of the Human Fertilization and Embryology Act of 1990 is at the heart of this appeal. The case is about whether cell nuclear replacement (CNR) was outside the scope of the Act or whether it was for the purpose, which could not be license under the Act. The main statutory interpretation approach discussed by the judges in deciding the appeal was the purposive approach. It was held that the embryos created by cell nuclear replacement were protected under the Act. The court took into consideration the intentions of parliament and laws were to be construed accordingly. The wording in the act, which suggested that the Act applied only …show more content…
His reasoning was that embryos created using cell nuclear replacement were similar to those created by in vitro fertilization. Because there is no difference between these embryos, the Act cannot be interpreted to exclude embryos created using CNR. Lord Hoffman agreed with Lord Bingham in dismissing the appeal. His reason was that at the time of legislating the Act, the method of creating embryos using CNR was unknown and the act assumes that all embryos will be created by fertilization. Because embryos created by CNR are embryos like those created by fertilization, they are protected under the Act in a similar manner. The decision was based on what would give the best effect to the policy of the …show more content…
For a true and sure interpretation using this rule, four things should be considered. The first is the common law that existed before the legislation of the act, second is the mischief or defect not provided for by common law. The third is the remedy proposed by parliament to cure the defect at common law. The last thing is the effect of the remedy proposed. The application of this rule is complex because understanding of legislation is left at the discretion of judges. According to this approach, once the court has identified parliament’s intention in passing the act as well as the mischief the act was intended to correct, t law should be interpreted in manner that covers the mischief. The mischief rue is applied where the literal and the golden rules do not provide an appropriate outcome. However, this does not mean that the mischief rule will always yield a clear understanding of the statute and can make law uncertain as well as giving too much power to the
Name
Institution
Section 3 (3) (d) of the Human Fertilization and Embryology Act of 1990 is at the heart of this appeal. The case is about whether cell nuclear replacement (CNR) was outside the scope of the Act or whether it was for the purpose, which could not be license under the Act. The main statutory interpretation approach discussed by the judges in deciding the appeal was the purposive approach. It was held that the embryos created by cell nuclear replacement were protected under the Act. The court took into consideration the intentions of parliament and laws were to be construed accordingly. The wording in the act, which suggested that the Act applied only …show more content…
His reasoning was that embryos created using cell nuclear replacement were similar to those created by in vitro fertilization. Because there is no difference between these embryos, the Act cannot be interpreted to exclude embryos created using CNR. Lord Hoffman agreed with Lord Bingham in dismissing the appeal. His reason was that at the time of legislating the Act, the method of creating embryos using CNR was unknown and the act assumes that all embryos will be created by fertilization. Because embryos created by CNR are embryos like those created by fertilization, they are protected under the Act in a similar manner. The decision was based on what would give the best effect to the policy of the …show more content…
For a true and sure interpretation using this rule, four things should be considered. The first is the common law that existed before the legislation of the act, second is the mischief or defect not provided for by common law. The third is the remedy proposed by parliament to cure the defect at common law. The last thing is the effect of the remedy proposed. The application of this rule is complex because understanding of legislation is left at the discretion of judges. According to this approach, once the court has identified parliament’s intention in passing the act as well as the mischief the act was intended to correct, t law should be interpreted in manner that covers the mischief. The mischief rue is applied where the literal and the golden rules do not provide an appropriate outcome. However, this does not mean that the mischief rule will always yield a clear understanding of the statute and can make law uncertain as well as giving too much power to the