Doctrine of Judicial Precedence and Statutory Interpretation in England and Wales - Essay Example

? Doctrine of Judicial Precedence and Sta y Interpretation in England and Wales April 18 Introduction Interpretation of Statute laws and the doctrine of judicial precedence are key components of determination of laws in courts in Wales and England. Interpretation of Statute laws is technique whereby judicial officers in superior courts such as the court of appeal and the House of Lords apply and interpret the laws arising from legislation and acts of parliament otherwise known as statutes. Judges and magistrates are usually bound by judgments from the past in determining their current cases, when they follow such past decisions this then becomes the doctrine of judicial precedence. The use of these two important judicial tools, statutory interpretation and the doctrine of judicial precedence, aids the judicial officers in avoiding unnecessary vagueness and uncertainty in a case, which is similar to a previously determined one. Statutory Interpretation When there arises ambiguity and vagueness from Acts of Parliament in England and Wales, the Courts of law in England and Wales usually use this tool in determination of the true application and interpretation of such Acts of Parliament. They use this technique to unravel the true and real significance and meaning of the statute or in other situations when the statute has covert intentions. Words and phrases in a statute may be in such a way that they do not give out clear meaning when read or probably they involve mistakes made when drafting of such laws these presents ambiguity. Interpretation of statute by courts of laws takes the form of three rules; these are the mischief rule and the purposive approach theory, the golden rule and the literal rule Literal Rule The courts of law when applying this approach in interpreting the statutes, they give out the exact meaning as the texts are written in the Act of Parliament. Through this it utilizes two principles the noscitur a sociis rule –this gives that the words in the Act of Parliament should interpreted in line with the situation in which they have been used, secondly the ejusdem generic rule in which context are defined in tandem with the meaning of words that come before it. The use of this approach when interpreting and applying the Acts of Parliament is usually inflexible in sense though its adoption by the courts of law ensures that such laws are abided by and followed in respect of the desire of the legislation. Golden Rule This rule uses two formats when used in interpretation of Acts of Parliament and Statutes. The broad and narrow approaches these two approaches demands that the court should first consider the literal rule and thereafter use the golden rule in difficult case where the literal rule has failed or in a unique case in which the use literal rule does bring out the real meaning of the Act of Parliament (Latimer 2011, p.74). In case where the meaning of a statute presents numerous meanings, the narrow approach is applied. In Alder v George(1964) “Under the Official Secrets Acts in operation at the time, it was a mistake to hinder Her Majesty’s Forces in the locality of a forbidden area. George was arrested while obstructing such forces within a prohibited place, the court found easy applicability in using the fair regulation to enlarge the truthful phrasing of the ruling to cover up the act performed by the defendant”. When the courts modify words in a statute in interpretation, this aid in providing an otherwise irrelevant specific provision to be non-repugnant this is known as the broader approach.. In R v Sigworth (1935), the courts applied the golden rule in interpreting the Administration of Justice Act 1925 to convict a son who had killed the mother and denied him his inheritance as one could not benefit from his crime. This rule is very important because unlike the literal rule, which is rigid, this rule is flexible and allows the judicial officers to make, rational determination as the situation may presents itself. The verdicts arising from these cases when this rule is applied often result in uncertainty for the litigants expecting the outcome of such cases. The Mischief Rule When the courts of laws consider the intent of the Act or the piece of legislation this then becomes the mischief rule, the landmark case applicable to this rule has always been the Heydon’s case 1584 it gave out principles and reasons that must be abided by in using the mischief rule when interpreting statutes. The courts will evaluate the law as applied in common law in England and Wales at the time of determining the case and the mischief the legislature failed to cure. The remedy provided by the parliament will be looked into and the present remedy provided at this particular moment. The mischief rule is important in statutory interpretation as it is used instead of the literal rule. It however undermines or usurps the role of parliament in the making of laws (Enright 2002, p.210). Purposive Approach Here the courts apply the law according to what they believe, parliament wanted to arrive at or its purpose in enactment of the particular statute or Act of Parliament. The case of Coltman v Bibby Tankers 1988, defined ‘equipment’ under the Employers’ Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969 by adopting the purposive approach in broadly defining equipment. This was dine to show the intention of parliament when it made the particular law to define equipment broadly. This approach looks at cases individually as they come or present themselves in a court of law (Barak 2005, p.345) Doctrine of Judicial Precedence The Doctrine of Judicial Precedence means that courts are bound to stand by what has been previously decided and are not allowed to unsettle the established. This is what is known as stare decisis (Tan 1999, p.298). This doctrine of judicial precedence is based on two principles namely the ratio decidendi and obiter dictum which refers to the reasons advanced for a particular judgment and what the courts say about a particular case in English and Welsh courts. The obiter dicta might not form an integral part of the judgment but can be relied on in future. (Knoops 2005, p.2). Original precedence occurs when the present case before court is to be determined for the first time or instance and the presiding judge has not been given a leeway or the opportunity to look at past decisions in order to make a decision on a point of law (Rossini 1998, p.34). This situation will require the judge to reason by analogy and the decision made in the case at hand becomes binding on future cases with similar facts. For example in the case of DPP v Smith (2006), where the defendant had gone to visit her former girlfriend and held her down cutting out her valued hair, the learned magistrate held that it was not actual bodily harm resulting out of assault. On appeal, it was held that even if the issue of the hair was to be determined scientifically or medically, the hair above the scalp was still regarded as hair regardless of its nature. The judges therefore decided that this was actual bodily harm and therefore the case provided precedence for future cases. Binding precedence requires judges to look at past cases and use them to determine the case at hand regardless of his or her own opinion. This therefore means that courts in the lower ranks must follow decisions of superior courts regardless of any new issue arising and the cases presented must be similar to the previous decision or must have facts that are almost similar to the case at hand. The doctrine of judicial precedence and statutory interpretation in England and Wales are applicable in courts which binds that decisions made in the upper or superior courts should provide precedents that must be followed in future cases with similar circumstances. These cases must therefore be followed or applied by courts down the hierarchy. It is important to note that magistrates or subordinate courts do not set precedent but they must follow the cases set by the superior courts, in this case the House of Lords or the appellate courts (Antoine 1999, p.118). Through persuasive precedents, the court decides whether to abide by or follow the precedence set or not to follow it; moreover, courts are not bound to follow them or ignore them depending on the legal principle in the case due to its persuasive nature (Mitchelle and Minel 2003, p.73). Persuasive precedents may come from the lower courts or the magistrate courts and only the legal principles present in them can be applied in the upper courts, though caution must be exercised. In R v R 1991, the Court of Appeal, provided a persuasive precedence to the upper House of Lords though it was a court of higher stature by holding that a man could be guilty of rape as against his wife. Similarly, the Privy Councils in England and Wales also provide persuasive precedence to the courts of law though the decisions that they make in their tribunals though their decisions are not as binding as case laws. In R v Mohammed 2005, the Court of Appeal was ably persuaded to follow a decision set by a Privy Council previously. The stare decisis principle bind courts to follow the precedence set previously. This is through the rule of the doctrine of precedence as applied by courts down the line by all courts of law downwards the hierarchy. However, courts may depart from precedence if they feel that the case has wrongly been decided, or if they feel that it is right to decide the case in a different manner different from the precedence previously set. This flexibility allows the development of law and courts arriving at fair decisions and verdicts. Conclusion Judicial precedence and statutory interpretation are an integral part in the application of law in both England and Wales for the determination of points of law. This is important as it helps courts achieve certainty and consistency in the application of law to ensure fairness in the dispensation of law and allow the development of jurisprudence as applied by courts of law. Therefore, the courts must be carefully in ensuring the dispensation of justice for fairness and the provision of law without fear or favour. The continued presentation of cases with unique characteristics that may not allow the application of the doctrine of judicial precedence has also made the legislature to ensure that the laws that they enact are tailored to meet the current circumstances as they present themselves. This is where statutory interpretation comes into play and is used to determine the exact way to determine a case as it presents itself in the case. Reference Antoine, R..M. B. 1999. Commonwealth Caribbean law and legal systems. London, Cavendish Pub. Barak, A. 2005. Purposive interpretation in law. Princeton, Princeton University Press. Enright, C. (2002). Legal technique. Annandale, N.S.W., Federation Press. Knoops, G.-J. G. J. (2005). Theory and practice of international and internationalized criminal proceedings. The Hague, Kluwer Law International. Laster, K. 1997. Law as culture. Sydney, NSW, Federation Press. Latimer, P. S. 2011. Australian business law 2012. North Ryde, N.S.W., CCH Australia. Mitchell, A., & Dadhania, M. 2003. AS level law. London, Cavendish. Rossini, C. 1998. English as a legal language. London, Kluwer Law International. Tan, K. 1999. The Singapore legal system. Singapore, Singapore University Press, National University of Singapore. Read More