The Principles and Rules That Judges Use to Interpret Statutes - Essay Example

2. Using your knowledge of the principles and rules used by judges to interpret statutes, comment on whether Tom has committed an offence in the following situation: Name Instructor’s Name Course University Date of Submission The purpose of this analysis is to critically explore the case of Tom who has been arrested by police for violating the tenets of the Prohibition of Unsolicited Parties (Fictitious) Act 2010. By applying the principles and rules that are made use of by judges to interpret statutes this assessment aims to identify and understand whether Tom has committed an offence in the given scenario. As per the clauses of the Prohibition of Unsolicited Parties (Fictitious) Act 2010, the recommendations of the legislation are pertinent to a situation in which more than one hundred individuals are present on land for exclusively social purposes during the occurrence of which alcohol consumption is likely to be expected. In accordance with Section 1 (2) of the Act, the organizer of such a gathering must obtain permission from a local magistrate to host the event unless he/she is an exempt person for in this case the authorization of a local magistrate would not be required. Section 1 (3) states that an exempt person can be categorized as an individual who is the occupier of the land, a member of the occupier’s family and his/her agent or employee. The scenario which led to Tom’s arrest under the Prohibition of Unsolicited Parties (Fictitious) Act 2010 is described as follows: the defendant, Tom who is employed as a sales assistant at an electrical superstore was requested by Sally who is a manageress at the same store to keep an eye on her property, a 5-acre smallholding during the time frame that she was in Spain on a holiday. Accordingly, Tom arranged to invite some of his friends to celebrate his 21st birthday celebrations on Sally’s property that housed a small barn. However, an error led to the email being sent to all contacts on Tom’s address book as a consequence of which more than 600 people attended the party. The presence of hundreds of guests on the land prompted the owner of the neighboring farm led to inform the police about excessive noise that subsequently led to Tom’s arrest under the Prohibition of Unsolicited Parties (Fictitious) Act 2010. Referring to the question of statutory interpretation that is conducted by judges to declare whether the defendant has committed an offence or not, Tom’s case poses certain questions that need to be addressed and analyzed in the light the principles and rules of statutory interpretation. These aspects of concern and their significance to the case is as follows: 1) How many people did Tom intend to invite to this particular social gathering? Section 1 (1) of the Act states that the legislation is applicable in a situation where the number of people who are attending the gathering exceeds one hundred, however, in Tom’s case it is identified that the defendant only intended to invite a ‘few friends’ but could not do so because of a computer/email error the occurrence of which was beyond his control thereby, resulting in the attendance of six hundred people. According to Dorsey (2010, p. 7) the point of commencement for interpreting a statute lies in the language itself such that if the text aims to communicate a matter that is not characterized by ambiguity then the “plain meaning rule” should be abided by and followed. However, in his evaluation of this primary principle of statutory interpretation Johnstone (1954, p. 6) highlights that the aforementioned rule is essentially responsible for refuting legislative intent, this argument is further escalated by the use of extrinsic aids in construing a statute. Linking this discussion to the use of language in Section 1 (1) it can be stated that with regards to the prescribed number of individuals that are to be present in the social gathering, the quantity remains undisputed and the attendance in Tom’s case which is that of six hundred individuals exceeds the specified quantity. According to Kafaltiya (2008, p. 38) statutory interpretation that is conducted on the basis of the golden rule is such “…that where statutes are plain and unambiguous effect must be given to them”. However, in circumstances which it becomes evident that there exists a conflict between the unambiguous meaning of the statute and the intended outcome of the legislature then the golden rule grants the judge an opportunity to transcend the clear meaning in favor of the intent of the statute. Similarly, in Tom’s case it is also possible to draw a parallel with the purposive approach to the interpretation of a statute. According to Barak (2011, p. 88) an interpretation is deemed purposive because its objective is to attain a desired purpose which that specific legislation has been formulated to attain. Applying this concept to Tom’s case, the purpose of Section 1 (1) of the Act can be established as follows – it aims to regulate the occurrence of a social gathering of more than one hundred people on a land. In Tom’s case this number stands at six hundred. Directing the assessment to another critical component of the case 2) Did the accused party organize an event in which it is likely that alcohol was consumed? While, it is not explicit whether alcohol was consumed during this particular social gathering, it should be noted that the party was organized to celebrate Tom’s 21st birthday and the circumstances surrounding this social gathering where hundreds of youngsters are involved certainly enhance the likelihood of alcohol consumption. This component of Section 1 (1) is enhances the chances of ambiguity in statutory interpretation because of the use of a term such as ‘likely’. According to the application of the literal rule, the interpretation of the statute would suggest that Tom has committed an offence because in the given situation where over six hundred youngsters are attending their friends’ 21st birthday celebration it is indeed likely that alcohol would have been consumed. However, it is important to understand that decisions in the legal system must not be based upon the availability of evidence that is subject to circumstances rather than concrete proof. For instance, in Tom’s scenario the circumstances of the social gathering would suggest that alcohol consumption has indeed occurred however, the acceptance of a literal meaning would completely ignore the possibility that perhaps alcohol was not available at the gathering. In this case, the golden rule would allow a judge to take into account the facts of the situation and determine whether alcohol was consumed by the attendants at the social gathering or not. Moreover, the application of the mischief rule in this situation stipulates that when or where there exists an uncertainty in the statute, the judge is granted with the opportunity to incorporate his/her own perceptions, views and ideology in the matter so as to allow justice to prevail and for the situation to be advanced in a rational manner by eliminating the ambiguity. Therefore, if it is not determined through physical evidence that alcohol was indeed consumed then the judge can eliminate the incidence of malice or mischief because in a social gathering of over six hundred people that involves the participation of young adults is highly likely to include the consumption of alcohol. According to the stipulations of Section 1(1) of the Prohibition of Unsolicited Parties Act (2010) it can be stated that the defendant Tom can be identified as the organizer of a gathering of over hundred people that took place in a barn on Sally’s farmland that was no longer used. Consequently, Sections 1 (2) and 1 (3) of the Act are associated with the development of a scenario in which an individual cannot be deemed as an offender under the Prohibition of Unsolicited Parties Act (2010). The aspect in question in this case encompasses the use of the term ‘exempt person’ to define those individuals who are allowed to organize a social gathering of such nature without seeking the authorization of a local magistrate. These persons comprise of the “occupier, any member of his family or his employee or agent of his” (Prohibition of Unsolicited Parties Act, 2010). Applying the literal rule of statutory interpretation to the case sheds light on an intriguing aspect of the absurdity that is promoted by the employment of the plain meaning rule (Merz 1979, p. 31). In the case of the defendant and his acceptance of the position which allowed him to organize a social gathering on Sally’s 5-acre smallholding it is important to shed light on his role as the ‘occupier’ of the land rather than the ‘owner’ of the land. Thus, if the literal rule is applied to this situation then it would suggest that any individual who is able to occupy the land regardless of the circumstances that led to the occupation can be granted with the right to utilize the property in any manner that he wills. Indeed, occupancy is a matter of conflict in the statute for it is dissimilar to the notion of ownership and both cannot be categorized as the same as the circumstances that lead to ownership can lead to occupancy but occupancy on the other hand does not necessarily lead to ownership. This characteristic of the statute indicates the manner in which the literal rule can be deemed as an approach that often defies logic and reasoning. For example in the case of Adler v George (1964) the defendant’s conviction was not overturned because the statute indicated that an individual who would hinder the operation of a member of the armed force ‘in the vicinity’ of a proscribed location would be sentenced as per the Official Secrets Act 1920, however, in the given case the defendant did so while, being present in the proscribed location itself rather than the vicinity. Evidently, the judge deemed it incongruous to charge someone for being present in the surrounding area of a locality while, suggesting that he/she is innocent when they were actually present within the locality (Lucke 2005, 1029). The case of Tom is in fact analogous to the aforementioned situation where abiding by the literal meaning of the statute would appear to be absurd because it serves a specific purpose and view the broader situation at hand, where the person is not actually ‘in the vicinity’ but in the prohibited place itself and is the occupier of the land but not the owner. Associating the scenario with the golden rule, it would be plausible to suggest that a reasonable statute in this case would allow the judge to eliminate the consequences of following the literal meaning of the legislation. While, it is likely for the occupier to be the owner this cannot be the case in every scenario therefore, there can emerge exceptions to the language that has been used in the statute. Thus, to be identified as an exempt person occupancy at the time during which the social gathering of over hundred people where alcohol is likely to be consumed is occurring cannot be deemed as a satisfactory interpretation of the statute because then everyone who is present can act as the occupier of the land when the actual owner is not present. In accordance with the analysis of the rules and principles of the interpretation of statute it can be concluded that the defendant, Tom has committed an offence under the Prohibition of Unsolicited Parties (Fictitious) Act 2010 because as a non-exempt person he did not seek the authorization of a local magistrate to organize a social gathering of over hundred people, intentionally or by error where the consumption of alcohol was likely. Bibliography Dorsey, T. A. (2010). Statutory Construction and Interpretation: General Principles and Recent Trends; Statutory Structure and Legislative Drafting Conventions; Drafting Federal Grants Statutes; And Tracking Current Federal Legislation and Regulations. The Capitol Net Inc. Johnstone, Q. (1954). Evaluation of the Rules of Statutory Interpretation, An. U. Kan. L. Rev., 3, 1. Kafaltiya, A. B. (2008). Interpretation Of Statutes. Universal Law Publishing. Lücke, H. K. (2005). Statutory interpretation: New comparative dimensions. Merz, M. R. (1979). Meaninglessness of the Plain Meaning Rule, The. U. Dayton L. Rev., 4, 31. Read More