Principles and Rules of Statutory Interpretation - Assignment Example

and Principles and Rules of Sta y Interpretation Sta y interpretation is the process where courts of law interpret and apply legislations having clearly determined what they mean in a particular context (Sullivan, 2007). Oftentimes the words of a statute have a plain and ordinary, straightforward meaning that does not necessitate any interpretation. But many times the words used may be ambiguous or vague. Owens (2001) argues that there is hardly a legislation that adequately, specifically and unambiguously addresses all the matters; this makes it absolutely necessary to have interpretations on a case to case basis. The task of interpreting falls on the judge ruling on a particular case. The interpretation of the statute will be aimed at discovering the true intention that the legislature intended and put that into practice. Judges have been interpreting statutes for centuries now. In the past, though, the statutes were being drawn by very competitive legislature people and made the issue of interpretation almost non-existence, the same cannot be said of today. The task of interpretation of statutes has become very critical in the nineteenth, twentieth and twenty first centuries. The courts always find it necessary to interpret the statutes even though they have been drafted by experts. Some of the reasons that may be attributed to the inconsistencies, and therefore the need for interpretation, include the following. First, words are not necessarily the perfect symbols of communication. Depending on the context and the time the words were written or spoken different meanings can be derived from the same words. Secondly, some situations that were unforeseen at the time of making the legislation will also necessitate adequate interpretation to give consideration to the recent development. These developments may include change of culture and or technologies which make the application of a particular statute difficult. The third reason may be the need to take care or give special treatment to special interest groups (Kim, 2008). In their duty of interpreting the statutes, the judges may use several instruments at their disposal; these include rules and canons or doctrines that guide interpretations. Some of the rules include the literal rule, the mischief rule, the golden rule and the purposive approach. The doctrines include ejusdem generis and noscitur a sociis among others. This paper examines a case of Tom allegedly in breach of the Prohibition of Unsolicited Parties (Fictitious) Act 2010 that prohibited the gathering of more than a hundred persons on a land for a social function where it is likely that alcohol will be consumed. The exemption to this rule was if an express permission was obtained from the local magistrate or the person convening the meeting is a person exempted from the force of the statute by the statute itself. The exempted persons included the occupier, any member of the occupier’s family or his employee or an agent of his. Facts Sally is the manageress of an electrical superstore. She decided to travel to Spain for a holiday break opting to leave her 5 acre smallholding under Tom, a sales assistant at the same workplace, to keep an eye on it. While she was away Tom decides to invite his friends over at the smallholding to throw them a party for his 21st birthday in an unused barn on Sally’s farmland. He invites a few of his friends via email, but due to some technical error the email is sent to every person in his email address book. As a result, over 600 people arrive for the party. A neighbouring farmer who is not comfortable with the resultant noise calls the police who apprehend Tom for breach of the Prohibition of Unsolicited Parties (Fictitious) Act 2010. Argument Given the aforementioned facts, the rules of interpretation or the doctrines used will determine whether Tom committed an offence or not. The rules and statutes are not applied exclusively but rather in conjunction with one another (Owens, 2001). In most cases even the principles are the ones that inform the rules of interpretation. The following instruments can be applied. The Literal Rule This is where the words of a statute are read verbatim and given the ordinary meaning of the language of the statute (Slapper and Kelly, 2009). Language is a very essential component of communication for human beings. But in spite of being superior to symbols and other forms of communication, it is still imprecise and therefore imperfect. To avoid the ambiguities that come with the language, the legislature often finds it wise to include definition clauses in the statutes. These are meant to explicitly define the terms used in the statutes and limit their scope of application (Owens, 2001). Therefore, using this rule, where there is an absent of a contrary definition then the words of the statute will be given their plain, ordinary and literal meaning. A leading case here is that of Whitely v. Chapell (1968) LR 4 QB 147 where the defendant was being charged for impersonation during voting. The law stated that it was an offense to ‘impersonate any person entitled to vote’. The court, ruling by applying the literal rule, held that the defendant was not guilty since he had impersonated a dead person who by law is not entitled to vote. In this case, the words of the statute are unambiguous. Section 1(1) explicitly provides the limit of the number of people as a hundred while section 1(3) is the definition clause that defines the exempted persons, which will be given their ordinary literal meaning. Section1 (3) defines the exempted people as the occupier, any member of his family or his employee or agent of his. Since it is clear and there is no vagueness in the definition, the only remaining matter is determining whether Tom’s definition falls within that of the exempted persons. The facts are unclear as to whether Sally, apart from being the manageress was also the owner of the business. If she is also the owner, applying the literal rule, Tom will not be liable as he will be an employee, an exempted person. But if he is not an employee, just a co-worker, then literal application of the statute will not exempt Tom making him guilty of the offense he is being charged with. Apart from considering whether Tom is an employee or not, the literal rule may also consider whether Tom was an agent. According to the statute, an agent working on behalf of the principle will be exempted. Should Tom be considered Sally’s agent having been given the duty of taking care of the property while the owner was away? If the court interprets Sally’s asking of Tom to keep an eye on the property as an explicit or implied contract creating an agency relationship between Sally and Tom then Tom will not be held responsible for the noise in the party since he will be acting as an agent. Mischief Rule This rule is used to interpret statutes to remove any mischief and defect that may be there in an application of a statute (Chynoweth, 2002). A statute is usually enacted to compel obedience on a particular issue. But sometimes this enactment may have a loophole that may be explored mischievously causing injury to others. This rule is set to remedy such a situation as was evident in Smith v. Hughes [1960] 2 All ER 859 where the court stated that a statute should be so construed to advance the remedy it was enacted to and at the same time suppress all the mischief. Its main aim is to remove an injustice or absurdity (Slapper and Kelly, 2009). In this case, Tom knew that an error had occurred and that is why more people than he intended attended the party. However, Tom did not take any preventive measures to remedy the mistake. For example, he should have restricted the entrance of other persons once the number had reached the legal limit, he did not. Better yet he would have called off the party once he realized a mistake had occurred; still he did not. Instead he did let the party continue. This can be construed to mean that he wanted to circumvent the statute by blaming the technological error and in the process avoid being prosecuted. Applying the mischief rule, the court should find Tom liable. The court will be unjust to the neighbor if it lets Tom get away with that defense. In the aforementioned case of Smith v. Hughes, the law stated that it was an offense to loiter or solicit in the streets for the purpose of prostitution. The defendants tried to circumvent the statute by instead calling men from the balcony and tapping on windows. In defense, the defendants asserted that they were not in the streets and therefore not breaking any law. The court, applying the mischief rule of interpretation found them guilty holding that the purpose of the law was to remedy the public from the harassment from prostitutes. Similarly in this case, the law was enacted to remedy the disturbance by noisy neighbors without permit (Chynoweth, 2002). The court should therefore apply the law to preserve the initial intention of the law and consequently eradicate the mischief being explored. The Golden Rule This rule allows the judge to avoid an absurdity as a result of application of a statute using its literal normal meaning. Unlike the mischief rule, it gives the words their plain, literal obvious meaning during the interpretation of the statute. However, if the results of then such application will lead to an irrational result then the judge is allowed to depart from that meaning and form a new meaning that provides justice to the parties (Chynoweth, 2002). The leading case in this rule is that of Re Sigworth (1935) where a son killed his mother and sought to inherit the property left behind by the deceased. The law on inheritance was very clear, with no ambiguity, that in such an instance the next of kin should inherit the property. The defendant was the next of kin. However, the court departed from the literal application of the statute stating that the son, who is a murderer should not benefit from his crime. Therefore, this rule seeks for justice and look at other factors besides the facts of the case (Slapper and Kelly, 2009). Applying the golden rule in this case, the court may rule that since the invitation to those who initially were not intended to attend occurred due to an error, it will be an act of injustice to convict Tom and yet, may be, the error was beyond his control. The judge will depart from the literal meaning which will lead to punishing a person due to a technological error that was not envisaged by the legislators at the time of making the statute. Doctrines Apart from the discussed rules, the judges’ interpretation of statutes is also influenced by several doctrines or canons applicable in law. The most conspicuous of all is the equitable canon. This canon is closely associated with the Golden rule interpretation of statutes. This canon provides that a judge’s decision should be based on innate sense of justice and not necessarily what the statute stipulates (Slapper and Kelly, 2009). Its main purpose is to balance the interest between the two parties in conflict and also balance the rights and the wrongs. In this case, applying this canon, the sense of justice will only be attained by establishing that there was a mistake which resulted to the occurrence of the situation and hence Tom was not liable. Justice will not be served if Tom is held responsible yet he had no control over the technological error which resulted to sending invitation email to all his email address book contacts. However, the principle of equitable can also be detrimental to Tom if the judge establishes that Tom did not take any step to mitigate the damage already caused. Tom’s behavior on realization of the error which had occurred will determine whose interest the judge will put first. Furthermore, the equitable principle takes into consideration cases where facts were not adequately anticipated or provided for in the statute by the legislators (Sullivan, 2007). This is where the judge will set aside the ruling from the rest of its kind since the legislators did not anticipate technological errors. The prudential canon states that when such a decision to be made is based on factors external to the law, the interest of the parties should be given preference. It further states that the duty of a good judge is to prevent unnecessary litigation, or any litigation for that matter. Using this principle, Tom should be acquitted of any charges of breaching the statute. The last canon that can be applied here relates to the substantive aspect of the situation and statute. This canon is known as the interpretation in light of fundamental values. Here, the judge interprets the law in such a way as to preserve the fundamental societal values, in this case of peace and harmony. Again, the genuine intentions of the actions that Tom took on realization of the error will be essential in determining who the law will give preference. Conclusion The law is very wide, and contrary to many peoples’ beliefs, it is also very flexible. Owens (2001) rightly states that the language used to formulate these laws sometimes do not capture the exact spirit of the remedy effect sought and this gives the judicial branch of the government the task of completing and promoting the legislature’s accomplishment of its purpose when making that particular statute. The purpose of the judiciary is thus not just blindly applying the statutes formulated by the legislature but applying them in a way that promotes justice. In achieving this, court utilizes various instruments which include the canons and the rules of interpretation of statutes. Internally, interpretation may be helped by factors such as the context of the situation, the title of the statute and the presence of a definition/interpretation clause. Externally, the historical settings object and reason and extemporaneous expositions may affect interpretation of statutes (Owens, 2001). Therefore, a single case may be interpreted differently depending on the rule of the interpretation used or the factors enumerated above. In the case study above, for example, the application of literal rule, and to some extent the mischief rule, will have Tom liable for violation of the statute. However, the application of the Golden rule and some other canons would have acquitted Tom of all charges due to considering other factors external to the statute such as technological errors. Care should be taken when interpreting statutes to make sure that justice prevails. References Primary Sources Smith v. Hughes [1960] 2 All ER 859 Whitely v. Chapell (1968) LR 4 QB 147 Secondary Sources Chynoweth, P., 2002. Statutory Interpretation. Lawlectures.co.uk, [online] Available at: < http://www.lawlectures.co.uk/law1/Documents-Law1/Statutory-Interpretation%28Study-Paper%29.pdf> [Accessed 21st January 2014] Kim, Y., 2008. Statutory Interpretation: General principles and recent trends. FAS, [online] Available at: [Accessed 21st January 2014] Owens, K., 2001. Law for non-law students. London: Cavendish. Slapper, G., and Kelly, D., 2009. The English Legal System. London: Taylor & Francis. Sullivan, R., 2007. Statutory Interpretation. Toronto: Irwin Law Inc. Read More