Whether Derek Has Committed an Offence - Essay Example

? Sta y Interpretation Using your knowledge of the principles and rules used by judges to interpret statutes, comment on whether Derek has committed an offence in the following situation. Judges have a responsibility and obligation of dispensing justice in accordance to the law of a given country. They preside over court proceedings regarding particular cases with a bid to administer justice. Their powers, training, method of appointments, and functions vary across different jurisdictions.1 However, regardless of jurisdictions and provisions of law, judges are required to conduct themselves in a court of law in an impartial manner. In presiding over court proceedings, they hear all evidences and witnesses presented by parties involved in particular cases; they then asses the arguments and credibility of the evidences and parties which guide them towards making a ruling on the case at hand. The judgements made by judges are based on a judge or panel of judges’ personal interpretation and interpretation of the law that relate to a particular case.2 However, to avoid subjectivity and erred judgements, judges are guided by principles and rules which they use to interpret statutes. Statutory interpretation is the process through which legislation is rendered and enforced; that is, courts interpret and apply legislation to specific cases being presided on.3 Principles and rules of interpretation of statutes are very important in ensuring that justice is administered appropriately. This is because some words in statutes are vague and ambiguous while others are plain in meaning. Therefore, different level and amount of interpretation is needed when a case is involving a statute.4 In order to interpret and apply statutes, judges usually find meanings using various methods and means of interpreting statutes. These methods and means include the purpose of legislation, history of legislation, and the canons of interpreting statutes. In some instances, the meaning of legislation has proved to be inconsistent hence need for interpretation in order to achieve the purpose of legislation. For constituency to be achieved in the interpretation of legislation meaning, judges in the courts of law use specific principles and rules to resolve vagueness and ambiguity that appear in statutes. It is imperative to note that different principles and rules of statutory interpretation may be applied. The application of these principles and rules depend on the nature of the ambiguity and the context in which ambiguity and vagueness arises.5 Statutes are drafted by legal experts and it is the language used in the statutes leave little room for interpretation. However, experience by legal practitioners and scholars have shown that expressions and words in statutes are in some cases ambiguous hence the need to resolve the inconsistencies. They argue sometimes interpretation of legislation may differ from its construction.6 Interpretation is the process of finding out the true meaning of a given word and ascertaining the sense that the author wanted to convey. As such, a statute being a legislature edict thus its interpretation should seek the intention of its author or maker. The obligation of the judiciary, therefore, is to interpret the true intention of the Legislature in formulating the statute at hand.7 In an event that the provision of a statute is open to more than one interpretation, the court has to make a decision or an interpretation that represents the true purpose of the Legislature. It is worthy pointing out that legislation contains uncertainties due to a number of reasons thereby necessitating interpretations. These reasons include the following: one, in the course of enactment uncertainties may be added to the statute. Two, new technologies, cultures, and unforeseen situations often make interpretation and application of laws quite difficult. Three, words can sometime be ambiguous and its meaning may change over time hence making them imperfect symbols to communicate true intention.8 During statutory interpretation in the court of law the following scenarios may ensue. First, the judges may give the words in the statute the plain meaning, its leading to absurdity notwithstanding. Two, the judges may use the golden rule in an event they deem that the literal meaning of the words leads to obvious absurdity. Lastly, the judges may apply mischief rule where they ascertain the intention of legislation by considering meanings beyond the words used in the legislation.9 Generally, judges are guided by the following principles and rules while interpreting statutes. These principles and rules are mostly referred to as canons; they guide judges in interpreting statutes. The first canons are textual canons; these canons use rules of thumb to understand the words in the statutes and they include the following; first, ejusdem generis which entails interpretation words of the same nature or kinds. The second textual canon is plain meaning where words in a statute are interpreted in their ordinary and plain meanings. The third is expression unius est exclusion alterius which simply means that the list of items that are not in the list are considered not covered by the statute. The second canons are the deference canons which require judges to defer to another institution’s interpretations. The last canons are substantive canons that instruct the judges to favour statutory interpretations that promote certain policy results or values in the society.10 Principles and rules of statutory interpretations are aimed at giving consistency to the meaning of legislation. However, as noted, inconsistency and ambiguity may arise during interpretations. In order to minimize the possibility of this happening and to give court verdicts more credibility and consistency, the following presumptions may be applied during statutory interpretations. One, statute(s) do not interfere with legal rights that are already vested. Two, their operation are not retrospective in regard to substantive law. Three, they do not deviate from international or constitutional law. Four, the statutes are presumed as not binding the Crown. Lastly, they do not in any manner oust or substantially interfere with the courts’ jurisdiction. Using knowledge of the principles and rules used by judges to interpret statutes, I will comment on whether Derek has committed an offence in the following situation. Ray, the Manager of a builder’s merchants, asks Derek, a Sales Assistant at the same workplace, to keep an eye on his 5-acre smallholding while he is on holiday in Spain. Derek emails a few of his friends to attend his 21st birthday party in a disused barn on Ray’s farm land. Due to a technical error, the email was sent to his entire email address book. Over 600 people arrive at the party and a neighbouring farmer calls the police complaining about the noise. Derek is arrested for breach of the Prohibition of Unsolicited Parties (Fictitious) Act 2010. In this case, Derek is still presumed innocent until proved guilty. The case relates to a complaint by neighbouring farmer of Derek’s employer, Ray. He is arrested for the breach of the Prohibition of Unsolicited Parties (Fictitious) Act 2010. First, it is important to consider circumstances that led to the complaint by the neighbour which eventually culminated to Derek’s arrest. Derek had been given a responsibility by his manager to keep an eye on the manager’s 5- acre smallholding while he was away on holiday in Spain. Due to the opportunity of time and space presented by his manager’s absence and coincidence with his 21st birthday, Derek deemed it fit to host a party in his manager’s farm. He therefore set series of actions in motion to facilitate his birthday party. The first action which is at the centre of this case is invitation of his friends. He intended to send emails to a few of his friends to invite them to his birthday, but unfortunately a technical error occurred and the email was sent to his entire email address book. As a result, over 600 people at the party, this was not his initial intention. Due to the large number of people present, noise was inevitable and this caught the attention of the neighbouring farmer who made complaint to the police. The charge on which Derek is accused of is under Prohibition of Unsolicited Parties (Fictitious) Act 2010. The following provisions of this Act provide relates to Derek’s case; Prohibition of Unsolicited Parties (Fictitious) Act 2010 Section 1 (1) This Act applies to a gathering of more than a hundred people on land for a social purpose in which it is likely that alcohol will be consumed Section 1 (2) Subject to Section 1 (3) it is a criminal offence to organise such a gathering without the permission of a local magistrate unless the organiser is an exempt person. Section 1 (3) For this purpose an exempt person means the occupier, any member of his family or his employee or agent of his.11 In the light of the above provisions, Derek cannot be considered to have breached any of the provisions even though the Act applies to a situation as it was during his party; there was a gathering of more than a hundred people on land for a social purpose in which it is likely that alcohol was consumed. Derek did not commit a criminal offence since he did not require permission of a local magistrate for such a purpose; in this case he was an exempt person. Section 1 (3) states “For this purpose an exempt person means the occupier, any member of his family or his employee or agent of his.” Derek was an employee hence an exempt person. It is evidently clear that, fundamentally, Derek did not deviate from the provisions of this Act as it is. In applying textual canons in this case, Derek cannot be said to have breached this Act. Textual principles and rules of statutory interpretation relates to rules of thumb for understanding the words used in a statute. Some cases usually meet the textual threshold and can be dismissed at that point if that is the only consideration applied to the case. However, doing this may sometime ignore the true intention of the legislation hence defeating justice. 12 Therefore, it is critical to apply other principles and rules of statutory interpretations in order to achieve the true intention of legislation and to accord justice appropriately and objectively. It is no doubt that the intention of this Act was to prohibit some societal vices which may interfere with peace and freedom of others and the general tendency of disruption of law and order. It also purported to promote certain morals and values in the society such as modest drinking and orderliness. Therefore, even though Derek may not have breached any provisions of the Act in the textual context, he may have breached the Act, substantively.13 His party may have conflicted with the societal value such as orderliness. Due to relatively large number of people who attended his party, noise which the neighbour is accusing him of could have been difficult to contain. This is especially so, if those in attendance consumed alcohol. If indeed the accusation by the neighbour is true then Derek is guilty of breaching this Act. This is because the party interfered with orderliness and tranquillity of the neighbourhood. Using the substantive principles and rules, the court should favour interpretations that foster certain policy results and values. These policy results and values aims at achieving order and maintaining law in society in addition to upholding and respecting the rights of each person. 14 In this situation, Derek’s party might have interfered with rights of his manager’s neighbour. As such, Derek is guilty of breaching this Act which intends to maintain law and order in addition to promoting societal values that intends to respect each person’s rights. However, the fact that Derek had not intended to invite such large number of people should not be ignored. This is because if the number could have been small, it could have been manageable and may be the case could not have arisen in the first place. In conclusion, it is clear that Derek committed an offence in the sense that his party interfered with the order and tranquillity of the neighbourhood. He breached this Act because his party interfered with the intention that this Act purported to instil and maintain in society; law and order in an event of a party. However, he did not breach the textual provisions of the Act, fundamentally. The interpretation beyond the textual context of the Act’s provisions is what makes him guilty of breaching this Act. Considering the circumstances surrounding the situation right from the beginning, Derek should be acquitted of the offence for the following reasons; he did not breach the provisions of the Act as it is, presence of so many visitors in his party was not his initial intention, and his individual rights should be acknowledged and respected. He should not be convicted for an offence that he did not intend to commit in the first place and circumstances that were beyond his control such as e- mail technical error. Additionally, Derek’s situation can be considered as a case of unforeseen situations that are inevitable.15 Realistically, a gathering of over 600 people has a very high likelihood of creating some unwarranted noise, unintentionally. In a birthday party this possibility is likely to be higher even with some level of control considering that persons there are in a celebratory and happy mood. In the light of this, Derek’s situation should therefore be considered special and there is need for compromise. References C Elliot and F Quinn, English Legal System (12th edn, Longman Publishers 2011) E Elhauge, Statutory Default Rules: How to Interpret Unclear Legislation (Harvard University Press 2008). E Finch and S Fafinski, Legal Skills (3rd edn, OUP Oxford 2011) F Bennion, Statutory Interpretation (5th edn, Butterworths Law 2008). G Slapper and D Kelly, The English Legal System 2011- 2012 (12th edn, Routledge 2011) T McLeod, Principles of Statutory Interpretation, (B. Rose 1994) V Allen and S Riches, Keenan and Riches’ Business Law (10th edn, Pearson Education Limited 2011) V Allen and S Riches, Business Law (9th edn, Longman publishers 2009) Y Kim, Statutory Interpretation: General Principles and Recent Trends (Nova Science Publishers 2009) Read More