Statutory Interpretation and Judicial Precedent - Essay Example

College Sta y interpretation and judicial precedent The English Justice System always strives to be a better system thatdelivers justice to the people. This justice can only be achieved through the consistency within the law. This consistency can only be achieved if some rules and guidelines are followed by the courts. However, two forms of doctrines have been put in place to ensure that the courts achieve the required goals in solving cases. The doctrines include the statutory interpretation and judicial precedence. From these two doctrines, courts are seen to have some principle powers in England and Wales. However, this paper will discuss the principle powers that courts in England and wales have in connection to statutory interpretation. Furthermore, it will bring in the way in which doctrine of judicial precedent engage with statutory interpretation. Statutory interpretation is where the statute that has been passed by the parliament is interpreted. The main aim of this interpretation is to ensure that the statute has been understood clearly. This goal is not always easy to achieve because there are many factors that affect the process. Statutory interpretation is essential to avoid problems that may occur due to many doubts that might be brought out by the law. There are many factors that may cause doubts in the laws that have been made. One of the factors includes the use of words that are ambiguous. These words will bring in a lot of confusion and without statutory interpretation, many problems might arise. Printing errors can also cause doubts on the law. This is because different people might interpret the errors differently. This will cause many misunderstandings. Draftspersons may also use broad terms that have wide meanings. Interpreting these terms or phrases will be difficult. Only statutory interpretation can help reduce problems of this kind. However, statutory interpretation has been developed by the judges to help reduce doubts that people have when cases are being solved (Manchester, 26). There are many principle powers that are available to the courts in England and Wales. These powers exist due to the rules of statutory interpretation. From these rules, courts in England and Wales have been granted powers that help in solving cases that are brought to these courts. The rules include the Mischief Rule, the Golden Rule and the Literal Rule (Manchester, 29). For long time, courts in England and Wales have used literal approach to interpret statutes. This approach was later considered as the Literal Rule. According to the Literal Rule, courts are required to give meaning to the statute words. Courts are required to interpret what Parliament intended in the words of the statute. If the words in the statute are unambiguous, then the court has the power to expound the words naturally and in ordinary sense. This means that the courts are required to interpret the statute with respect to the will of the Parliament. Courts here do not have much power over the Parliament. One of the resource that is available for judges in exercising the Literal Rule in the case of Whitely vs. Chappell of 1868. In this case, the defendant had impersonated someone and voted during an election. The defendant had impersonated someone who had died but was still in the register. Impersonating someone who was entitled to vote was a statutory offense. According to the court, the person had died and was not entitled to vote (Manchester, 45). Therefore, the court ruled that the defendant was not guilty because he had impersonated someone who was not entitled to vote. This decision looked absurd but due to the powers of the court to rule based on the Literal Rule, the decision was legal and acceptable (Wilson, 102). The Golden Rule is similar to the Literal Rule except it can eliminate absurd meaning. This rule empowers courts to avoid the Literal Rule that can be absurd. It grants courts more power by ensuring that they slice themselves from the legislation’s literal meanings. Example of a case where this rule was applied is the case of Grey vs. Pearson. In this case, Lord Wensleydale suggested that the ordinary sense of the word was to be followed only if it does not lead to absurdity. In R v. Allen case, the word ‘marriage’ was used to read ‘going through marriage ceremony’. Therefore it was illegal to marry while your spouse was still alive. Another case that applied the Golden Rule is the one between Keene and Muncaster (1980). According to the regulations that were put in place in 1873, it was illegal for a motorist owner to park his or her motor vehicle overnight. It was only legal if a permission to do so was given by a uniformed police officer. A uniformed officer had parked his vehicle and claimed that he had given himself permission but his argument was rejected. The court applied the Golden Rule and he was later convicted of his offence (Manchester, 71). Another rule that can be applied by the court is the Mischief Rule. This rule is used to eliminate the ambiguities caused by the literal rule. The court now interprets in order to remove the mischiefs. This rule grants more powers on the hand of the judges. This is because judges will have more power over the decisions they are going to make on the cases. The court has powers to look at the whole issue and try to bridge the gap within the issue rather looking at the words on the issue. The mischief rule was used in Smith vs. Hughes (1960). In this case, it was against the law for a prostitute to loiter around purposely for prostitution. This was according to the 1959 Street Offences Act. Six women who were got soliciting men from the balconies of their houses were arraigned in court. They defended themselves that they were not on the streets but the judge applied the mischief rule that the Act was there to ensure that people walking along the street were not solicited in any way. Therefore, this rule grants power to the judges to make decisions based on the actual issue rather than on the words (Wilson, 112). Judicial precedence in England and Wales is the main source of law. It is mainly based on stare decisis. This means that decisions that are made by the judges are based on the previous cases that are similar to the one at hand. The decision made must be the same as the one made on the past cases. The facts on of the cases should be sufficiently similar. Often, the inferior courts try to follow how the superior courts like the supreme courts solve similar cases. This has made cases to be predictable and consistent (Manchester, 56). The judgment made by every judge is divided in two parts. These parts include the racio dicendi and obiter dictam. Racio dicendi is the main reason why the decision is made. It is the principle that makes the judge makes the final decision. When a judge is giving judgment on a particular case, he must give facts that the evidenced has proven during the case. Law is then applied on the facts given and the final decision is reached. The reasons for the final decision made by the judge are then given. On the other hand, obiter dictam means something that is said by the way. In this situation, the judge speculates about the other side where the facts were different (Benton, 23). The ratio decidendi is the part that is binding during judicial decision making. Obiter dictam is not binding because it is less relevant when it comes to issues concerning the original case. It can only be persuasive during the later cases. This will help the nest judge who will use the case as the reference. It is always hard to differentiate between ratio decidendi and obiter dictam during judgment (Benton, 34). This is because they are both giving in a long speech and the judge does not have the time to explain them differently. There is a hierarchy courts in England and Wales. On the top is the European Court of Justice. At this level, the doctrine of judicial precedence is not recognized. This court is free to depart itself from any previous decisions. The next one is the Supreme Court followed by the Court of Appeal. Below it is the Divisional Courts. Therefore, the doctrine judicial precedent and statutory interpretation is important to the English legal systems because they help in applying law fairly. From the rules of statutory interpretation, the courts have also been granted powers to help in interpreting law. Work cited Benton, Brian. Business Law. Burlington: Elsevier, 2005. Internet resource. English Law, Third Edition. Taylor & Francis, 2009. Internet resource. Huxley-Binns, Rebecca, and Jacqueline Martin. Unlocking the English Legal System. , 2010. Internet resource. Manchester, Colin. Exploring the Law: The Dynamics of Precedent and Statutory Interpretation. England: Sweet & Maxwell, 1996. Print. Wilson, Stephen R. English Legal System. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011. Print. Read More