Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
23 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
What is Statutory Interpretation? |
> The way in which lawyers and judges interpret Acts of Parliament. |
|
|
Why do we need Statutory Interpretation? |
> Words can be very vague, and have different meanings to different people. > No matter how careful the legislative draftsman tries to be, no provision can hope to cater for all circumstances. > Lawyers will argue for alternative 'interpretations' to support a client's case. > Judges are constantly called upon to judge on the meaning and application of legislation. |
|
|
In which Act has a phrase led to many problems, even though it seems simple? |
> Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 |
|
|
Which case did the phrase from the Dangerous Dog Act come into dispute? |
> Brock v DPP 1993 |
|
|
In which case did the HoL decide that psychological harm came under 'harm' in the Offences against the Persons Act 1861? |
> R v Ireland and Burstow 1997 |
|
|
Name the four ways that the courts tackle interpretation. |
1. Approaches to interpretation ( 4 rules ) 2. Rules of language 3. Presumptions 4. Intrinsic and Extrinsic Aids |
|
|
What is the Literal Rule? |
> Under this rule, the intention of Parliament is considered. > The literal meaning of those words must be taken, and given their ordinary, plain, and natural meaning. |
|
|
Name three cases where the Literal Rule was applied. |
> Whitely v Chappel (1868) > Cheeseman v Director of Public Prosecution (1990) > Fisher v Bell (1960) |
|
|
Name three advantages of the Literal Rule. |
> It respects the Separation of Powers. > Provides no scope for judges to use their own opinions, or prejudices. > It is consistent. |
|
|
Name three disadvantages to the Literal Rule. |
> The rule can result in absurd and unjust decisions. > Creates awkward precedents whcih require Parliamentary time to correct. > The rule demands standards of unattainable perfection from the parliamentary draftsman. |
|
|
What is the Golden Rule? |
> A modification of the Literal Rule, and starts by looking at the literal meaning, but the court is then allowed to avoid an interpretation which would lead to an absurd result. > The reason behind this rule is Parliament couldn't have intended to create an absurdity, so it's a judge's duty to avoid an injust verdict. |
|
|
What is the narrow application, and name a case where it was applied. |
> The court may only choose between the possible meanings of a word or phrase. > R v Allen (1872) |
|
|
What is the wider application, and name a case where it was applied. |
> This is where the words have one clear meaning, but the meaning would lead to an absurd result. > In such cases the court will invoke the golden rule to modify the words of the statute in order to avoid this problem. > Re Sigsworth (1935) |
|
|
Name three advantages of the Golden Rule. |
> Errors in drafting can be corrected immediately. > Provides an escape route from the absurd decisions produced by the literal rule. > By avoiding absurdities Parliament's true intentions can be put into force. |
|
|
Name three disadvantages of the Golden Rule. |
> Brings 'common sense' into law. > There is no guidance about how/when the rule should be used. > Judges can/have re-written statute law, which goes against the doctrines of Separation of Powers, and Supremacy of Parliament. |
|
|
What is the Mischief Rule? |
> Under this rule, the court should look to see what the law was before the Act (law) was passed, in order to see what 'mischief' the Act intended to cover. > The court should then interpret the Act in such a way that the gap is covered. |
|
|
Name two cases where the Mischief Rule has been applied. |
> Smith v Hughes (1960) > Royal College of Nursing (RCN) v DHSS (1981) |
|
|
Name three advantages of the Mischief Rule. |
> Helps avoid absurdity, and 'repairs' bad laws quickly. > It reforms and improves the law as each case |
|
|
Name three disadvantages of the mischief rule. |
> The rule dates back to the 16th century, so it cannot be applied to modern legislation. > Hard to find the 'mischief' for older acts. > Against the separation of powers. |
|
|
What is the purposive approach? |
> The rule goes beyond the mischief rule in that the court is not just looking to see what the gap was in the old law; the judges are deciding what they believe Parliament meant to achieve. > The rule allows the court to look at the whole Act not just the specific harm it was aimed to remedy. |
|
|
Name two cases where the purposive approach was applied. |
> Westminster City Council v French Connection (2005) > R v Z (2005) |
|
|
Name three advantages of the purposive approach. |
> Gives effect to Parliament's true intentions. > It avoids absurd, unjust, and harsh outcomes. > It makes extensive use of extrinsic aids to ensure an accurate/informed view of Parliament's intentions is established. |
|
|
Name three disadvantages of the purposive approach. |
> Goes against the doctrine of Supremacy of Parliament. > Can only be used if Parliament's intentions can be identified. > Isn't very well suited to English legislation like it is to European law. |
