Approaches Taken by Judges When Interpreting an Act of Parliament - Essay Example

Approaches Taken by Judges When Interpreting an Act of Parliament Approaches Taken by Judges When Interpreting an Act of Parliament Judges use different approaches when interpreting an Act of Parliament. Their various methods vary according to the particular situations at hand. The judges use these rules depending on the specific circumstances, and the interpretation of these rules differs according to the situation (Parpworth, 2012). The judges’ tasks include sitting down and analyzing points of law and understanding the meaning behind these laws. When the Parliament passes an Act, this means that they have put into place a new law that has to apply in that particular country or area. When someone breaks this particular law, they are summoned to the court of law and eventually will have to answer to these charges. The judges then interpret the words in that particular law with the aim of determining the real purpose of those words. The reason these acts need interpretation is because of the complexity of the language and the need to understand the correct explanation. There are indeed a few challenges that judges face in this interpretation of the law, such as a situation where there is sentence ambiguity, where a word has two or more meanings. Another complex situation faced when interpreting the law is that of errors in drafting (Delaney, 2014). This may change the entire meaning and purpose of certain laws. The problem arises when these mistakes are not picked up in Parliament when the bill originally become drafted, and this eventually will bring complications. These are a few issues faced during the interpretation of the law. There are a few methods used to interpret the law. These different approaches occur when interpreting an act of parliament. Literal Interpretation This is where the act of parliament is interpreted according to its literary form and meaning. The law is interpreted in its original from, no matter how insensible it seems or whether it seems irrational. The literary interpretation was in use in the 19th Century and does not apply nowadays. One of the examples of case law in which this rule applied was the case of Fisher vs. Bell (1960).This case involved the accusation of the defendant James Charles Bell, who faced charges for allegedly selling a flicker knife on his premises (admin, 2003). This knife can open and shut when pressure is applied to it systematically. This was against the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act of 1959 (“Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959,” n.d.).This case appeared in a court of law, and the question appeared in its original form. The prosecution decided to enlarge the meaning of the words, exactly as they were in their original sense. The primary concepts that came into the spotlight were the words "offer for sale" After careful consideration, the Court came to the decision that the defendant committed no crime. The court argued that displaying the goods in the window did not necessarily mean that there was an offer for sale (“TheyWorkForYou,” n.d.). The advantages of this approach to the interpretation of an Act are that it respects the supremacy of parliament, and it does not interfere with the intended purpose of an individual act. By interpreting the law in its original form that is a show of respect for those who created the particular law. Another advantage of this system of law interpretation is that it does not allow using their opinions. They only interpret the law according to the original state of the words, and that means that there is no room for bias or partiality when it comes to interpretation. Another advantage of this method is that it restricts judges to the role of only making sure the law is relevant to the case. They cannot twist or change anything but only use the facts as they appear. One of the shortcomings of this method of law, interpretation is that it gives parliament awkward precedents that need time to correct. Such occurrences waste much time. Huxley-Binns and Martin (2014) remarks that by interpreting the law in its original form, many times there are unfair decisions made as the court does not explore different angles to the cases. When interpreting the law, they only follow the law in its original context, and that leads to many unjust rulings during court cases. This rule of interpretation does not bring certainty in the legal process, and this is because of the lack of actual proof of the literal meaning of a written law. Another problem with this method of interpretation is the fact that the public also loses faith in the law because this form of law analysis is not entirely trustworthy. When the law only approaches situations from one angle, then the public lose trust in the justice system. Another shortcoming of this rule to law interpretation is that the law fails to put into consideration how difficult it is to understand the English language. They regularly take the law as it is written and blindly assume that it has no flaw. Finally, this method of interpretation can bring about arguments concerning the natural meaning of the words. So subsequently, this will lead to controversial situations. The Golden Rule In this method of legal interpretation, the judges follow the original meaning of the words unless they sound illogical or make no sense (Lavin & DiMichele, 2013). If this occurs then, they modify them to create a sensible meaning to the phrase. It can appear as a modification of the literal rule. A case law example of this method of interpretation is the Adler Vs George (1967) case where Adler faced charges for obstructing a member of Her Majestys forces in the vicinity of a prohibited area (“Adler v. Pataki,” n.d.). He stood in court for obstructing an officer on duty. Under scrutiny, it was found that Adler was not in the actual vicinity of the city though he was in that area. This was an absurd reason to arrest and convict the man. This law was immediately altered to accommodate this case, and in this particular instance, the golden rule was applied to verify the meaning of the word "vicinity". The golden rule caters to individual cases where the law written does not appear to have sensible meaning. The golden rule has the advantage of immediate correction of drafting errors. By doing this, loopholes will be closed, and the result is a just outcome. Another benefit of the rule is that it provides an avenue for the court to make sensible decisions because they recognize errors in the context of particular cases. Additionally, it respects parliaments supremacy and only allows for wording to be altered, and this is only in unique situations when the original meaning seems senseless or absurd. Another advantage of this is that it saves parliament much valuable time by preventing the house from the need of the process of amending the law. The golden rule also provides an escape route in cases where there is a problem using the literal meaning. It also helps to provide reasonable decisions where the literal meaning would have otherwise not favored the accused (Frederick, 2015). This means that the golden rule ensures there is soberness in making a decision. The golden rule ensures that there are fair trials and impartiality when it comes to interpreting the law and making rulings in court are equitable and honorable. The golden rule has a few disadvantages too. One of them is the uncertainty as to the guidelines for when it can apply. Another point is that this rule is rarely used, except in certain unique situations. That means that it is impossible to rely on this rule every time as a way out. Another discredit to this rule is the point that it is not easy to predict when a court will deem it necessary to effect this law. That will make it impossible for lawyers to strategize effectively using this approach. The use of this method is not a regular occurrence. In addition, the outcome is decided by the views of the particular judge at that moment. The Mischief Rule The Mischief Rule came into being during Heydon’s Case, which occurred in the 16th Century. Its criteria include the three questions: What was the law before the statute was passed? What problem was the law trying to fix? What remedy was parliament attempting to provide at that time? Many judges prefer this rule because it gives them total discretion in making a decision (Slapper & Kelly, 2014). The mischief rule inspects the gap in the preceding law and interprets the words in the best possible way. The law allows statutes to be redefined and adjusted. One case example showing the effectiveness of this method of law interpretation is the Smith vs. Hughes case (1967) (Denovo, 2012). In this case, Marie Theresa Smith and Christine Tolan were charged with soliciting in the street with the aim of prostitution under the Street Offences Act (1959) (Williams, 1960). The court carefully studied the case, and the evidence revealed that they were soliciting from balconies and windows.The judges made a final decision that the purpose of this act was.Indeed, to solicit passersby, which is an offense. The court made a decision based on this perspective and charged the two women for that offense. In this particular situation, the mischief rule was brought into play, and the judges made the decision under the ruling that the two women were soliciting with the aim to engage in prostitution. The mischief rule enabled the law to follow the due course, and they pleaded guilty because of their actions that happened with a particular intent. The mischief rule enables the law to take its due course and removes any loopholes that would disrupt this process. This rule also avoids the possibility of unjust outcomes to a case (Shaw, 2013). The careful deliberation of instances and analysis of the intention of individual actions performed enables rational thinking and the judges can make sensible decisions. The rule also allows the law to appear the exact way that parliament implemented (“Street Offences Act 1959,” n.d.). That is possible because the judges carefully analyze the evidence and concluded based on the intention of the actions. The rule is flexible because it allows legal procedures to be followed adapting to the particular case and the circumstances surrounding it. Another reason this rule is very efficient because it progresses and changes with the times. That means that the cases are usually determined according to that time when the event occurred, and many other factors are considered to determine the final verdict. One shortcoming of the mischief rule is the fact that it is undemocratic because it makes decision-making a one-sided process, which depends on the opinion of a judge (Shaw, 2013). Another major obstacle is that it may lead to misinterpretation of evidence because the actual mischief may not be understood or misjudged. Such issues may cause unjust decision making by judges. Another angle of complication with this rule is the fact that the mischief should stand clarified before a ruling applies (Bailey, 2012). Consequently, more will be spent trying to analyze the intention. Another implication of the mischievous rule is that the judges can rewrite statute law, and make a final decision in a court case, and this means that the work done in parliament was in vain. Such a concern may be of a significant issue. The Purposive Approach The primary intention of the purposive approach was to look at the literal meaning of the statute. Eventually, they discovered that it would be more efficient to look at the legislative purpose of the statute. This method looks at the statute and analyzes how the law applies as well as the best way to use it more effectively (McClelland, 2012). One case involving the application of the purposive approach was the case involving Lister vs. Forth Dry Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (1989) (Litster v Forth Dry Dock and Engineering Co Ltd [1988] UKHL 10, 1989).The case highlighted a business that was sold and handed over to new ownership. The employer then formally dismissed his employees an hour before giving up his company. These workers protested unfair dismissal. The court carefully analyzed all the information and brought out the fact that under The Transfer of Undertakings Protection of Unemployment Regulation, regulation 5, “A transfer does not terminate employment immediately after the transfer” took place (Litster v Forth Dry Dock and Engineering Co Ltd [1988] UKHL 10, 1989). Therefore, according to the primary objective of this statute this was to guarantee protection of the rights of employees, they got sacked from work. The judges found it necessary to import these additional words to enhance the effectiveness of this law and tackle the case effectively. The main purpose of incorporating the other factors to the written statute was to bring out the real legislative purpose of the law. By doing this, the effectiveness of this act was guaranteed, and the employees got their redemption. The purposive approach has been used many times per the EU statutes to emphasize the importance of an equal and just law, especially in the European countries (Steadman, 2013). The effectiveness of this approach is justified its ability to tackle sensitive, controversial issues. The purposive law is advantageous in many aspects. This approach can fill in the many gaps of the law. It does so effectively because it has a broad approach that enables sufficient coverage of the words mentioned in the statute. This method of rule interpretation leaves no room for bias because it ensures that all proper legal avenues and the law apply in the right way (McClelland, 2012). By doing so, this approach enables fair results from trials because of its transparency and open procedures. As earlier stated, many Europeans prefer the use of this approach because it encourages justice and equality in legal proceedings. Imaginative judges also prefer this method because it allows room for the judges to use their creative prowess. However, this approach makes it less certain to understand the real intent of the statute as it originated from parliament. It also brings uncertainty to the legal process, and this is because it is difficult to predict the approach that the judges will use in the course of justice (Barak, 2005). It also enables unelected judges to alter the law in order top fit certain cases, and this brings uncertainty as the purpose of the law as created in parliament is no longer understood. Due to this, it is hard to comprehend the intention of parliament because the law applies in the eyes of the court, and that may change the whole meaning of the initial statute (Govindjee & Govindjee, 2007). By doing this, it raises the issue of the primary duty of parliament because the judges can easily amend all the laws they create whenever they see fit. Another setback to this approach is seen especially in the UK, where the wording of the UK laws does support the purposive approach to the interpretation of legislation. Bibliography Adler v. Pataki [WWW Document], n.d. Findlaw. URL http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1461045.html (accessed 5.23.15). Admin, 2003. Fisher -v- Bell; QBD 10-Nov-1960 | swarb.co.uk. Bailey, V., 2012, Cape Law: Texts and cases - Contract law, Tort law, and Real property, AuthorHouse, Bloomington, Indiana. Barak, A., 2005, Purposive interpretation in law, Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J. Delaney, E.F., 2014, ‘Judiciary rising: constitutional change in the United Kingdom. Northwest. Univ’. Law Rev, 108, 543–605. Denovo, 2012, Smith v Hughes | Case Brief Summary [WWW Document]. URL http://casebrief.me/casebriefs/smith-v-hughes/ (accessed 5.23.15). Frederick, P.J., 2015, Knights of the golden rule: the intellectual as Christian social reformer in the 1890s, University Press of Kentucky, Lexington. Govindjee, A., Govindjee, D.H., Avinash, 2007, Fresh perspectives: commercial law 2, Pearson South Africa, Cape Town. Huxley-Binns, R., Martin, J., 2014, Unlocking the English Legal System, Routledge, London. Lavin, H.S., DiMichele, E.E., 2013, ‘The Golden Rule. Employee Relat’, Law J, 39, 89–94. Litster v Forth Dry Dock and Engineering Co Ltd [1988] UKHL 10, 1989. McClelland, J., 2012, A purposive approach to employment protection or a missed opportunity? Mod’, Law Rev, 75, 427–436. Parpworth, N., 2012, Constitutional and administrative law, OUP Oxford, Oxford. Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 [WWW Document], n.d. URL http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/7-8/37/contents (accessed 5.23.15). Shaw, L., 2013. Mischief Rule: Advantages and Disadvantages. Mischief Rule. Slapper, G., Kelly, D., 2014, The English Legal system: 2014-2015, Routledge, London. Steadman, B.J., 2013, Drafting legal documents in plain English-Guida pratica alla redazione di documenti legali in inglese. Giuffrè Editore, Milano. Street Offences Act 1959 [WWW Document], n.d. URL http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/7-8/57/contents (accessed 5.23.15). TheyWorkForYou [WWW Document], n.d. URL http://www.theyworkforyou.com (accessed 5.23.15). Williams, J.E.H., 1960, ‘The street offences Act, 1959. Mod’, Law Rev, 23, 173–179. Read More