The Interpretation of Acts of Parliament by Judges - Essay Example

Interpretation of statutes al Affiliation) Sta y interpretation entails interpretation of acts of parliament byjudges. Seventy five of cases presented at the House of Lords in the United Kingdom are associated with interpretation of statutes. Interpretation of statutes involves applying and reading statutory laws, and judges have a mandate of discovering the parliament’s intention during the passing of the law1. The content of statutes usually has a straightforward and plain meaning. In most cases though, the words of a statutes are usually unclear and sometimes ambiguous in that various interpretations can be made out of it. Judges have a mandate of resolving of making such statutes clear if not well interpreted. An example of unclear language emerged in the case of Myers v Twining in the year 1982. The judges were to make a decision on the association between a vehicle and roller skates. Many cases have been presented in courts with change of meaning of words over time. Some bills are rushed in parliament in time of emergency, hence the need for interpretation as a result of many errors that takes place during the act. The dilemma with statutory interpretation is that the court has to decide the meaning of a certain legislation passed by the parliament. The court makes judgement on the parliament’s intention when passing the law and its relevance in the present time2. On some cases however, the judges have often misinterpreted the legislation of the act. Other issues which may arise during the interpretation of the statutes must abide by the European laws or the human right acts. Misinterpretation of the parliamentary acts and legislation may contradict higher laws or lead to creation of new legislation that was not the intention of the parliament during the passing of such a bill or act. Judges deal with interpretation of statutes in a variety of ways. One way in which judges interpret statutes is by presumption. The judge is such a context begins the interpretation process by assumption of certain issues. The assumption may be considered to be true unless a better argument is raised with an intention to challenge it. Some of presumptions entail the inability to change the law and that the statutes do not influence the acts created in the past. Presumption of language is another challenge encountered during the interpretation of certain statutes. Utilization of words such as workman, tradesman or other person presents a lot of confusion during the interpretation process. Some words derive meaning from the surrounding environment3. The judges have to pay attention to the origin and intention of the word during the interpretation of legislations that bear such words. The court is often supposed to apply the statutes after the act has been passed in the parliament. Various issues and arguments have been raised in the court of law pertaining to interpretation of cases. The argument usually arises as a result of passage of ambiguous and unclear acts which in the process pose variety of challenges to the judges. Most courts have ended up developing rules that guide the judges in interpretation of the statutes4. The literal rule allows the judges to give the phrase or word its ordinary, dictionary or natural meaning, if in cases where it is perceived to be contrary to the parliamentary intentions. An example of the rule was presented by Lord Reid in a case of Pinner against Everett in the year 1969. In finding out the meaning of words presented in the statutes, the questions that usually come first most often target the ordinary and natural meaning of the words. Golden rule gives power to the court to look at the literal meaning of a phrase or word, but then literal interpretation should be avoided at all costs. Two approaches are utilized in the application of the rule. The broad approach and the narrow approach are the two approaches utilized. . While focusing on the golden rule, literal approach is used by the court unless in cases where it results to inconvenience, absurdity and inconsistency. The meaning is then modified in association with the statute5. The case of Allen presented in 1872 is a clear example of the narrow approach. The defendant in the case got married for a second time. The person was charged based on the person act of 1861 which was against a person getting married for a second time without terminating the previous one through a divorce. Allen argued that the law did not permit double marriage. The word marry got different interpretations. It was not possible to decide whether the word meant to go through the marriage ceremony or to get married to another person. The judge however adopted the first meaning and held Allen accountable for the offence committed. Broad approach was presented in a case of Adler against George in 1964. The charge was based on secret act of the year 1920. The defendant was charged with obstructing an armed forces member in an area closer to the prohibited one. The defendant argued that he was not in the vicinity but in the prohibited areas. The judges included the tem vicinity in a prohibited place with an intention of preventing an absurd result. The aim of a mischief rule is to identify the intention of the parliament in passing of a certain act. The method helps in identifying the mischief through targeting the wrong that the act was meant to correct. The rule is among the many others that the judge utilizes in the interpretation of the statutes6. The judge is to consider; the problem presented by the law, identify the situation of the law before the passing of the act and utilizing the findings when proving a verdict targeting a certain case presented in the court of law. Mischief rule was well applied by the court in a case involving smith against Hughes in 1960. A number of prostitutes were charged with soliciting, that was contrary to the street offense act of 1958. The prostitutes instead of acting on the streets, they attracted men by tapping on the windows while inside the building. They claimed not to be guilty since they were not doing it while in the street. The judges however, utilized the rule by basing solemnly on the intention of the parliament while passing the rule. The intention of the parliament was to clean up the street and what the prostitutes were doing was contrary to it. Purposive approach is based on the intention of the parliament during the passing of the law. It is considered the current version of mischief approach. In the case of Pepper v Harts, the judge clarified that ‘the difference between looking for intention and mischief in utilization of words as remedy is inappropriate and technical7. In purposive approach, the court usually focuses on the intention of the parliament in giving the verdicts to variety of cases that appear before them. The parliament more often can state their intention with transparency and clarity, but not in situations where such acts present loopholes. What often counts in a court of law is the statutory meaning not legislative intent. The intention of the parliament in passing of certain laws is usually unclear and hence the need for the courts to help in interpretation of the statutes. The basic mandate of the court is to provide true meaning to acts passed by the parliament. The function however is not intended on weakening the parliament. Parliament should ensure the choice of words utilized in the act is made clear for the purpose of understanding. In most cases, if the act presented in unclear of ambiguous, judges in courts may find it a challenge during interpretation. Unclear statutes may result to the judges neglecting the parliament’s purpose. Statutes are usually put in place to address some challenges, impact some life improvement, remove blemish and make some changes in the society. Understanding the intention of the parliament when passing certain act makes it easier for the judges to interpret the content on the statutes8. The courts are required to ascertain statute’s meaning before it is applied in various cases. It is true that even the statutes that are well drafted in parliament may have a variety of interpretations. It is therefore the task of the judges to ensure that the intended meaning is not changed. The court is to utilize the various rules or principles aimed at interpreting the statutes. Traditionally most courts in the United Kingdom have utilized the literal rule in interpretation of the statutes. The rule allows the judges to offer the words of the statutes a meaning that is plain. It is usually the function of the court to bring out the purpose and intention of the parliament in making of such an act. The problem emerges as a result of words having numerous meanings. The results provided by the court are therefore surprising and can result to confusion when a verdict pertaining to a certain case is being presented. An example of literal rule is applied in the case of whitely v chapel in the 1869. According to the statute, it was illegal to impersonate any person willing to vote. The defendant however impersonated someone who was dead but had been registered to vote. The defendant was acquainted based on the words used in the statutes. Purpose approach has often been considered as mischief rule extension. The ambiguities presented in the statutes are resolved by finding the purpose of the statute instead of basing on the mischief that the statute is intended to resolve. Many current statutes posses extra social agenda rather than just resolving mischief. The court should thereby focus on the major purpose of the statute in order to be able to solve a number of ambiguous provisions associated with it. The approach has been identified as the best and in the year 1969, judges were urged to utilize it by the law commission9. Statutes in the United Kingdom are expressed in broad principles with the courts tasked with filling the gaps done through interpretations. While several courts have continued to emphasize on the statute’s language in solving the cases, more interest should target the purpose approach with an intention of solving the ambiguities that are emerging. The application of purposive approach is well outlined in a case targeting Knowles v Liverpool city council (1993). Knowles was council’s employees and was injured by a defective flagstone while on duty. The defendant claimed damages from the council under the employee’s act of 1969. The council argued that the word equipment was not part of the act and therefore they were not liable. Basing on the purpose of the statutes by the house of lords, the council was liable since it was meant to protect employees from being exposed to material that were dangerous to their health at their place of work. The council ended up being liable through the application of the purposive approach. Purposive approach unlike mischief rule emphasizes on the intention of the parliament. Statutory interpretation is of essence where uncertainty and complexity arise. Judges on many occasions may request for the statutes to be interpreted further for the purpose of providing a fair judgement especially in cases of ambiguity, new development, drafting error and change in the utilization of language. Some statutes may present a variety of meaning as a result of interpretation. Meaning of words keep on changing from time to time, statutes in the previous century may present a different meaning of words compared to the words used today10. Poor interpretation may result to different outcome rather than the one intended by the parliament. Statutes interpretation is done by the courts. The judges should ensure the literal, golden, and mischief rules are well utilized in providing a better interpretation of the statutes. Confusion in the interpretation of the statutes may make it difficult to solve certain cases presented in the court of law. It is unwise to claim that three rules are 100% consistent. However, despite the minor limitations, the rules provide a continuous and coherent framework for the judges in provision of the best possible outcome. Works Cited Barak, Aharon. Purposive interpretation in law. Princeton University Press, 2007. Farber, Daniel A. "Hermeneutic Tourist: Statutory Interpretation in Comparative Perspective." (1995): 513. Herman, Shael. "Quot judices tot sententiae: A study of the English reaction to continental interpretive techniques." Legal Studies 1, no. 2 (1981): 165-189. Haley, Jeffrey T., and Arval A. Morris. Concept Analysis: A Theory of Statutory Intepretation Based on Dworkins Jurisprudence. 1979. Herman, Shael. "Quot judices tot sententiae: A study of the English reaction to continental interpretive techniques." Legal Studies 1, no. 2 (1981): 165-189. MacCormick, Neil. "Argumentation and interpretation in law." Ratio Juris 6, no. 1 (1993): 16-29. Malinowski, Bronislaw. "A New Instrument for the Interpretation of Law. Especially Primitive." Yale Law Journal (1942): 1237-1254. Manchester, Colin. "Problems of Statutory Intepretation: A Case Study." Local Government Studies, 2010, 43-55. Posner, Richard A. "Reply: The Institutional Dimension of Statutory and Constitutional Intepretation." Michigan Law Review (2003): 952-971. Rademan, Annette Mari. A Comparison of Statutory Intepretation and the Interpretation of Patent Specifications in Infringement Actions with Specific Reference to the pith and Marrow Doctrine and the Doctrine of purposive Construction Pretoria: Unisa, 1995. Swaak, Christof RA. "Consistent Interpretation of National Law: Dutch Courts on the Wrong Track?." European Public Law 2, no. 2 (1996): 219-224. Read More