The Principles and Rules Used by Jundges to Interpret Statutes - Essay Example

? The principles and rules used by judges to interpret statutes Contents Introduction Judges and the Law 2 Derek’s Position: Discussion 3 Defining an Employee 5 Conclusion 7 8 Bibliography 8 Introduction The statutes of the law are interpreted by judges through a parameter of fixed rules and principles through which the statues are applied to specific situations. Once a statue is defined, this is not in dispute, but the many nuances that come as the law must be applied to real world circumstances are framed by the way in which a law must be approached for interpretation. The case study that has been presented provides for the necessity of interpreting the position that an actor in the scenario named Derek holds in relationship to the offense that he is accused of committing. According to the fictitious Act that has been used for his arrest, if Derek is defined as an employee than he is considered exempt, but if by throwing a party he has acted independently of that definition, then he is guilty of the charges. The following discussion will consider the position of Derek in relationship with his charged offense and use the rules and principles that judges utilize in order to make a judgement about the problem of the party. The definition of Derek’s position in relationship to his use of the land is vital in order to come to a well rendered conclusion. Judges and the Law The interpretation of a law becomes common law when a statute does not directly address an aspect of a situation that comes for judgment and a ruling will help to define that aspect. A judge, however, will not come into contradiction with a standing law in order to favor a different outcome to a trial (Miller and Cross 2011, p. 12). The intention of this structure is so that the law is consistent to the point at which it has already been defined, but is flexible at the points that have yet to be defined. In this way, the law grows and benefits from the learning process as human experience is developed and knowledge is gained. One of the most debatable positions on the standard of the rights of judges to debate the merits of law is through the “the rule in Heydon’s Case” which was defined in 1584. Lord Coke said at that time that “The office of all the judges is always to make such construction as shall suppress the mischief, and advance the remedy, and to suppress subtle inventions, and evasion for continuance of the mischief and pro private commodo, and to add force and life to the cure and remedy, according to the true intent of the makers of the Act, pro bono publico” (Solan 2010). This statement, whether or not one believed in the context from which it was created, clearly states that the law is the intention of interpretations by judges. There are fixed rules and principles by which law is interpreted by judges in England in order to put limitations on the liberties that judges might use when interpreting statutes. A statute must be interpreted with equity so that the fairness of the law is the defining principle upon which it is interpreted. Where case law and legislative law come into conflict, Parliamentary Sovereignty is the ruling principle in which legislation will be considered over case law. Substantive law dictates that a law must be defined by standards of moral intent that are in line with the general understanding of right and wrong. Deference suggests that where others have interpreted law in one direction, it is likely that the law should continue in that direction of interpretation (Smith 1848, p. 828). Derek’s Position: Discussion The fictitious Prohibition of Unsolicited Parties Act 2010 suggests that ‘a gathering of more than a hundred people on land for a social purpose in which alcohol will be consumed’ (section 1) is a criminal offense when permission for this event has not been organised under the permission of a local magistrate (section 2). The exception to this, which is laid out in section 3 is that the occupant of the land, his family, his employee, or an agent operating under his direction may throw a party without permission from the local magistrate as they are exempt from this act. The dilemma of this situation is that Ray has asked Derek, who works under his management, to watch his 5 acres of land while Ray is away on holiday in Spain. Derek takes this opportunity to have a party on the land to celebrate his 21st birthday in a barn that appears to not be in use. The e-mail that was supposed to be sent to a few of his friends ended up going out to his entire e-mail address book which meant that over 600 people were invited to the party. After noise complaints, Derek was arrested under the Prohibition of Unsolicited Parties (Fictitious) Act 2010. What is clear about the problem is that Derek threw an unauthorised party on the land of his manager that does not appear to have been with his permission. The problem with the arrest is that the Act does not say that an employee must have permission from the employer to through a party, but must merely be his employee. While there might be an assumption that an employee would only throw a party with the permission of his manager, it only expresses that he must be an employee of the occupant of the land. The next point that can be argued is that because he does not have permission, he was not acting as an employee and does not qualify on that exemption. Once again, permission is not clarified by the statute and the definition of who is considered an employee and under which parameters is not discussed. The two aspects that must be considered are the definition of an employee in relationship to the hosting of the party and the aspect of permission as it relates to that definition. From face value, Derek is listed as an exempt person on the list of those who do not need the permission of the Magistrate, but face value can be peeled back for discussions on a deeper level. Derek is not Ray’s employee in relationship to the land. The scenario does not discuss the possibility for payment to Derek for watching the land, so the question at that point can be further defined as whether or not Derek through the party in the position of employment, or if he did so outside of those boundaries. This is where the issue of the clear lack of permission can be introduced to influence the decision of Derek’s authority on the matter. Clearly, the scenario does not imply that Derek had any permission toward inviting friends over. Although the size of the party was in error, there is no indication that Derek had been given permission to invite even a few people over. The purpose for his action was personal and was not related to any form of business activity. It can be argued, then, that Derek was a free actor in the event and access to the land was not the same as acting as an agent for Ray. This can be countered with the argument that as Derek was acting as the overseer for the land for Ray, payment was not an issue, but trust. Derek was entrusted with the care of the land by Ray and therefore was acting as Ray’s agent, even in activities that had not been explicitly given permission. Both sides of this can be argued through substantive law, that the merits of the consideration can be weighed in order to define the position that is held by Derek (Rossini 1998, p. 41). Defining an Employee In order to define the nature of Derek’s situation within his capacity as caretaker of the land that Ray has put under his care, one of the first places a judge might go to gain insight would be the Terms of Employment Act of 1994. The act of turning to a former law in order to help define the position of Derek would be as part of the Parliament Sovereignty principle. In the terms of Employment Act of 1994 it states that an employee will have the right to know the terms of his or her employment through a written statement provided by the employer in which the outlines of pay, responsibilities, and rights are available. The employer has two months from the date of employment to comply with this right (Moffet 2006, p. 260). If Ray has no intention of providing this document and Derek cannot produce it then it might be considered that Derek entered into this position with Ray as a friend and was not, in fact, employed. Furthermore, if the position that Derek holds as a subordinate of Ray is considered as the primary relationship this same Act can be used to define his position on the land as an employee because the document that was provided to him under this Act did not state (an assumption that is being made) that his job involved caring for the land of his manager when that manager was on holiday. Using this parameter for making the decision, the first part of the questions that arises from this situation can be answered. The second part of the problem then goes as to whether or not Derek had permission to act on the land as an agent of Ray. While Ray did not give expressed permission for a party (this is another assumption that would have been clarified during the hearing), Derek’s position as agent for the occupant is in dispute. At this point, the basic morality and civility of the community can be taken into consideration. The party was interrupted by law enforcement, not because of the law under which Derek was arrested, but because the party was creating a disturbance. The party was being conducted outside of basic decency and therefore was the subject of interference by those in authority. This basic point can be used to influence all that follows and is a part of the rules and principles through which the judge will make a judgement on a matter. The party needed control of local law enforcement, so therefore was outside of the basic social tenets that were conducive to good neighbour relations, thus Derek’s actions were not in support of the position that Ray holds within the community, assuming that any good landowner and occupant would want to foster good relationships with his community. Under this consideration, and because there is no permission involved in Derek’s action, it might be considered that Derek was not acting as Ray’s agent. On the other hand, Ray gave Derek the control and care of his land while he left the country, his trust placed upon Derek and therefore the responsibility for whatever Derek chose during that time was expected to be done with the trust that he was given. If he misused that trust, it is possible that problems with Ray would occur, but this does not mean that when he acted he was not acting with the trust that he was given, thus as an agent of Ray. His judgement may have been poor, but his actions may be considered under the agency that he was given. Conclusion The final conclusion to the case as decided by the judge through Parliamentary Sovereignty and through substantive law considerations is that while Derek was not in the employ of Ray in regard to this land, he had been given the trust to act as an agent of Ray in regard to the events of the party. Therefore, since he was acting as an agent for Ray in regards to Ray’s right as the occupant of the land, Derek was not guilty of failing to receive permission from the magistrate for his party. Derek had not, as far as the court was given information, been given the responsibility with any limitations so he was the agent for the owner/occupant and had been given the right to act in that capacity in regard to the use of the land. This provides that any other problems associated with this party would fall under the responsibility of the land owner, Ray, to clear up in regard to the disturbance complaint. Bibliography Miller, Roger, and Frank Cross. 2011. The legal environment of business. Mason, Ohio: South-Western. Moffatt, Jane. 2006. Employment Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rossini, Christine. 1998. English as a legal language. London [u.a.]: Kluwer Law International. Smith, E. Fitch. 1848. Commentaries on statute and constitutional law and statutory and constitutional construction. Albany: Gould. Solan, Lawrence. 2010. The Language of statutes: laws and their interpretation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Read More