The Interpretation of the Statute - Assignment Example

Sta y Interpretation The main objective of this paper is to point out the various aspects dealing with the interpretation of the statute. Why do the statutes need interpretation in the courts before making certain decisions? This is the main key question applying in this paper. Reasons for such actions are well laid down and discussed in detail to give information that is regarded to be up to par. In addition, various approaches, rules, and presumptions are used during the interpretation of the statute. With these and other reasons, the paper is highly intensified. The process in which the courts interpret and apply legislation in the courts is known as the statutory interpretation.The court looks on the meaning of the statute and looks at how it is implemented by the process. The statute, which is regarded as a bill, or law, which is passed by the legislature, subjects the people on the rules and obligations. However, apart from statutes making law, statutory interpretation involves making a decision on how a particular bill or law will apply in a particular case. A clear interpretation is sometimes very important especially when a case involves a statute and sometimes the words of a statute have a plain straightforward meaning. However, in other times, there is ambiguity or sometimes vagueness in the normal words of the statute, which must be resolved by the judge.The judiciary gives out an interpretation on how the legislation should be applied in a certain case since there is no unambiguous legislation that addresses all matters. There are several reasons as to why words being imperfect symbols in the communicating intent, they are ambiguous,and the meaning changes with time, and lastly the unforeseen incidences are unavoidable and the new technology and anew culture apply the existing law to be challenging. Addition of uncertainties may also take place in the course of enactment; for example, need to cater for special interest group or compromise.Judges have the responsibilities of giving out the meanings of the statutes. They use several measures and methods of statutory interpretation such as theuse of traditional canons of statutory interpretation, legislative history and additionally the purpose. It is known that,in common law jurisdictions, rules of statutory interpretation may be applied to the enacted legislation or additionally to the legislation that is delegated such as administrative agency regulations. The judiciary majorly takes such actions; therefore,there is a responsibility that the court needto do, it must try to determine how enforcement of a statute should be done in that statutory construction is the key requirement needed to do such actions. It is, therefore,the statutory construction’s tenet that the legislature is supreme in nature; thus, when they proceed with the responsibility of creating law and that the court is just but a mere interpreter of the law. The court can make several sweeping changes in how the law operates during their performance of construction. Once Parliament has passed an Act, it then falls to the courts to apply the statute in a particular case. This can lead to difficulties where the facts of the case may not have been envisaged by Parliament or where there exist drafting errors or ambiguity in the statute. There exists The Interpretation Act of 1978, which provides certain basic definitions such as singular includes the plural,and he includes her. In addition,the courts have developed rules to assist judges in interpreting statutes. There are different reasons as to why the statute needs to be interpreted during court sessions and other actions. The first reason as to why there is the interpretation of the statute is that decisions can be made fairly. Statute is one key aspect is very important and if not well understood it may lead to wrong decisions. Since the statute gives detailed information of the rules and measures of what should be decided, in the court it will be unfair and injustice if a wrong decision is made because the statute was not well interpreted.In addition, if a wrong decision is made in the court by the judge, haunts will still hold the judge until the last minute.Therefore, the main reason as to why the statute should be interpreted is for right decision making in the court sessions. The second reason why the statute is interpreted is to understand the main key aspects involved in the statute. Every judge has the right and responsibility of knowing and understanding the various elements of the statute. As a judge, the main components of the statute are to be in the fingertips so as to be responsible as a judge. A judge who does not understand the various key aspects of the statute has no chance of ruling in the court and has no key requirements as a judge. Statutory interpretation is the main requirement for the judges who take actions in the court about the legislation. Statutes are also used as reference places. Such reference places are key aspects when it comes to court matters. Since it is hard for everybody to memorize all the aspects dealing with the legislation, then statutory interpretation will be necessary for future reference during court sessions. This will enhance better decision making and also it will secure job opportunity for the judge involved. A well-informed judge with the statute then will have no problems when dealing with matters involving legislation and during court sessions. This then means that statutory interpretation is equitably important to judges in the courts. Statutory interpretation is also important during conflicts between sources of law. This where case law and legislation conflict, in such case, legislation takes precedence so long as there is inconsistency. Interpretation of the statute is needed to solve such situations. Statutory interpretation comprises several rules, for instance, the first and most important rule deals with the plain language of the statute. According to this statute rule, “If, for example, the statute says "motor vehicles,” then the court is most likely to construe that the legislation is referring to the broad range of motorized vehicles normally required to travel along roadways and not aeroplanes or bicycles even though aeroplanes are motor propelled vehicles while bicycles are used on roadways” (Elliot & Quinn 50). Three main approaches are used in statutory interpretation in the legislation. These are the literal approach also known as the constructionist approach, the purposive approach or in other words also known as the mischief approach and the last approach is the integrated which is also known as either the contextual or the unified approach. A clear definition on these approaches is not offered unless by the judges who regularly interpret a statute without stating the approach, they are using,or they may use words interchangeably. Different views on the approaches’ true extent are provided by the academics and,in fact, they always ignore the integrated approach. The first approach is the literal approach or alternatively the constructionist approach. This approach always uses different canons and rules to create an establishment of the meaning of words or sometimes the intentions of the parliament. Lord Reid stated that: We often say that we are looking for the intention of Parliament, but that is not quite accurate. We are seeking the meaning of the words, which Parliament used.These words are used to give details on the approach. The second approach is the purposive approach, which has a wide variety of aspects to deal with. The purposive approach is characteristic of the way EC Law needs that requires interpretation. This is dealt with through the aspect of the human right act. It is clear that the human rights act has to be dealt with using this approach since it is like a living document that has to be subjected to interpretation in a different manner from other legislation. There are additional positive duties assigned to the act to interpret the legislation. On a primary base, both subordinate and primary legislation requires reading,and given effect in a way that is much compatible with the convention rights. This section applies only to the primary and subordinate legislation whenever they are enacted. However,this section does not affect the validity thus continuing operation or otherwise enforcing any incompatible legislation and lastly it does not affect the validity thus continuing operation or otherwise enforcing any incompatible subordinate legislation only if primary legislation creates prevention on the incompatibility. Lord denning sometime back that the intention of parliament could be destroyed if the literal rule is applied once said it. We do not,sit here to pull the language of Parliament to pieces and make nonsense of it. We sit here to find out the intention of Parliament and carry it out,and we do this better by filling in the gaps and making sense of the enactment than by opening it up to destructive analysis (Slapper & Kelly 24). In regard with this approach,there is an omission or addition of certain words but there are several rules that the court must follow to omit or add any word. Firstly, the court must abundantly ensure that the purpose intended for the statute or provision is in question.Third and last rule are the substance of the provision that would have been made by Parliament, though not necessarily the exact words Parliament would have used if the error in the Bill would have been noted. The third condition is the one regarded as a crucial condition,and it is very important that is even if the conditions are met, the court may find itself inhibited from statutory interpretation concerning the satisfaction of the underlying intention of the parliament. The change in language may be too far reaching. The third approach is an integrated approach in that these courts have used approaches from the traditional view over several years. These courts have posed a wide range of respect to the real words that are used, but rather than sticking religiously to the words, they interpret them according to the context that they appear, and the purpose of the Act. Additionally the approach also has other involvements. It involves not much choice between alternative rules,but it has a progressive analysis in which the judge firstly put into consideration certain aspects. For example,the judge considers the ordinary meaning of the words in the general context of the statute, and then takes a broad view of what constitutes the context. An abnormal result is reached if he/she puts other possibilities into consideration where the ordinary meaning is used. The unified or alternatively the contextual approach draws support from dicta in decisions of the House of Lords where discussion of the general principles of statutory interpretation has taken place. An integrated approach tries to establish the intention of Parliament considering the act as a whole. To add on to the Act, as well as the intrinsic aids to interpretation, the framework comprises the historic passage of the Act, both pre-parliamentary and the parliamentary material. This approach was initiated,and it was clearly illustrated by the famous R v G and other skillful individuals in the year 2003 where their Lordships posed an exploration on every authoritative work that touches on the issue of men’s rea in criminal damage. Nevertheless, different approaches by each of the Law Lords complicated their approaches, but they managed to explore the content thoroughly. Finally, the judgment distils to the definition of reckless as in the Law Commission’s Report, as well as the Working Paper that came after it. Since the statute is always speaking, the context or application of the statutory expression may change over time, but the meaning of the expression itself cannot change. Therefore, to start off is to gain the meaning of the word “reckless” which was used by the parliament in 1971. This does not mean that the parliament intended to mean anything different from the law commission contained in both the report and in the working paper number 23 which is preceded. These materials used provide an intention of replacing the old fashioned and thus the misleading term ‘maliciously’ by the term reckless. The famous Lord Lowry had two considerations in the meaning of the word that was obtained in the order, the disputed word and its meaning, the role of the legislation and the parliament’s intention in regard to the context in which it was being used, and the final decision was made in regard to the final basis.The integrated approach allows cautious use of these three elements.Lord Nicholls stated that: “The purpose has to be inferred from the language used, read in its statutory context and having regard to any aid to interpretation which assists in the particular case. In either event, whether the purpose is stated expressly or has to be inferred, the exercise is one of statutory interpretation”(Elliot &Quinn 56). Now there are certain presumptions have grown up around how a statute is interrupted, and the presumptions are as follows. The first presumption is that there is a presumption against the alteration of the Common Law. Second presumption is that the mens rea mental element should be a part of a criminal offense and the third presumption is against retrospective application of the statute. There is also a presumption against deprivation of an individual’s liberty, property, or rights. There is a presumption that does not apply to the crown. Presumption against breach international law and that’s words take their meaning their context, as well as the presumption that words take meaning from their context. Obviously one will read within and to a large extent that this is a sensual idea when you read what is important. Moreover, that context in legal is often the context of the law. So I think if one wants a, a basic guide, a basic understanding, of what is going on then the context is all-important as a guide to interpretation.Now, in a more specific sense, the presumption that judges make in areas ambiguity those words will take the meaning from their context, but what strikes most is about these presumptions of interpretation. With facts given herein, the paper it is, therefore, very important that statutes be well interpreted and understood before passing on judgment while in the court proceedings. With the approaches and the presumptions of the interpretation of the statute, it is clearly necessary that these aspects are well kept in the brain and referred to them when necessary. Works Cited Elliott,C. & Quinn, F. (2012/13) English Legal System, 13 Ed., Pearson Slapper, G. &Kelly, D (2013). The English Legal System, 14 Ed. Routledge Read More