English legal system †statutory interpretation

English level-headed system statutory interpretation task 1 It rout out be argued that the role of statutory interpretation is to get a line that settle uphold the intention of fantan. With reference to the turn upes used by settle, critic aloney assess whether the principles of statutory interpretation fulfil this argument. While parliament decides what the natural law is it is ultimately down to judges to give feeling to it in its diligence in realistic situations.Words in statutes may be designed to cover all possible contingencies in which miscue the meaning becomes extremely broad as in Brock v DPP 1993, the phrase any bo chthonic of the type know as the pit bull terrier in the precarious Dogs practice 1991 was disputed over. Other situations are w here(predicate) a particular intelligence information causes ambiguity and its not clear which meaning should be used. There could discombobulate been drafting errors and new developments over time make deports i ncapable of blanket new scenarios or technologies. For their aid the Interpretation get along 1978 states that unless the contrary appears, he includes she, and singular includes plural (Martin 2007 86). Three non-obligatory so-called rules (methods) have been developed by judges.Under the literal rule words are given their minute and pure dictionary meaning but it is severely criticized for resulting in injustices and absurdity. In the case of London North Eastern Railway v Berriman 1946 a claim failed on the grounds that the deceased died while oiling points along the railway line and not while relaying or repairing it. Tindal CJ in the Sussex Peerage plate (1844) stated the save rule for the social structure of Acts of Parliament is that they should be construed match to the intent of the Parliament which passed the Act. If the words of the statute are in themselves tiny and unambiguous, wherefore no more poop be necessary than to fatten those words in their natural and median(a) sense.The golden rule is an alternative, bustling process where words can be modified only to reverse an absurd or repugnant situation. Applying the narrow version in R v Allen 1872, the court held that the word marry not only covers ratified man and wife but extends to going through a ceremony of marriage to avoid the absurd situation of the accused circumventing the wishes of the general assembly by advancing the literal definition that a second marriage cannot be legal as the first marriage will invalidate it. In its wider application the court in Re Sigsworth 1935 prevented a murderer son benefitting from the retort of his crime even though the word could result in one(a) possible surfacecome and shows that the literal rule, if applied, would have caused man outrage and indecency.The shiftiness rule derives from Heydonss Case (1584) with the aim of finding out what the law was ahead the passing of an Act and seeks to eliminate the mischief by advancin g the still (Martin 2007) and was applied in Royal College of Nursing v DHSS 1981, where the Abortion Act 1967 makes in lawful for a pregnancy to be terminated by a registered medical practitioner (Martin 2007 91). The court held that it is legitimate for nurses to carry out the second stage of the procedure because the mischief Parliament sought to shell were dangerous back grittyroad abortions in unhygienic conditions (Ingman 2008)The literal prelude is organism throw out in favour of the more modern goal-directed approach. Since Britain has become a member of the EU judges are becoming accustomed to its methodology, finding themselves obliged to interpret legislation in conformity with Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998. While the mischief rule considers contemporary issues the purposive approach goes further in giving effect to the purpose of the Act prospectively. Such a case is R (Quintavalle) v Secretary of defer for Health 2003, where CNR could not have been envisa ged by Parliament at the time the Act was enacted as it did not exist at the time. Minor rules of spoken language such as the ejusdem generis maxim means general words which borrow specific ones are taken to include things of the same kind (Elliott 2009 61). This technique was employed in Powell v Kempton Park 1899 where an outdoor place known as Tattersalls Ring was excluded from the words house, office and room as they were all indoor places.The expressio unius alterius method means the mention of one thing excludes others and can be seen applied in Tempest v Kilner 1846.The final rule is noscitur a sociiis meaning that a word is known by the confederation it keeps. In IRC v Frere 1965 it was held that because other annual interest was mentioned, interest could only apply annually. Intrinsic aids suggestive of Parliaments intentions are the preamble stating why the Act is being enforced but equally useful are extrinsic sources previous Acts on the same subject historical set ting, rather case law and dictionaries of the time.Pepper v Hart 1993 was a bourne case enabling judges to consult the debates that took place in Parliament prior to the Act being implemented. Lord Browne-Wilkinsonthe purposive approach to construction now adopted by the courts in order to give effect to the true intentions of the legislature.Task 2 In the following situations, use your acquaintance of statutory interpretation to explain whether or not the following defendants would be guilty of an offence under section 1 of the alley Offences Act 1959 where it shall be an offence for a common prostitute to loiter or solicit in a public street or public place for the purposes of harlotry.(a) Fiona was waving and banging on the window of her monotonous to tear the worry of a friend walking by on the street below. As she live above a busy street, her action caught the attention of people including a police officer called out to investigate complaints under s 1 of the Street Of fences ActCertain presumptions available to judges can be instrumental in deciding cases. These are a presumption against the change in common law that the Crown is not bound by any statute unless the statute expressly says so that legislation does not apply retrospectively and in this case in that location is a presumption that mens rea is required to convict in criminal cases and when judges construct the intention of legislation they will consider this along with the actus reus. In B (a minor) v DPP 2000, Lord Nicholls emphasised the common law presumes that, unless Parliament indicated otherwise, the appropriate mental element is an unexpressed ingredient of every statutory offence. Fionas actions might be misconstrued by the public and the officer as that for the purposes of prostitution given the context and public awareness of prostitutes manner in gaining attention. It appears this is the case here. At trial the true relationship between Fiona and her friend can be establis hed. If the literal rule is applied and the imperativeness of mens rea is discarded then there is the possibility of her being convicted unjustly. However, in Sweet v parsley 1970, although the defendant was the proprietor of a house where cannabis was being smoke-dried by the renters, the House of Lords decided the defendant was not guilty since she had no knowledge of the inhabitants activities so she lacked mens rea and, therefore, could not be convicted (Martin 2008). With a purposive approach and reference to the Sweet case the court is bound to acquit her as Fionas actions were not for the purposes of prostitution and Parliament will not have think for the innocent to be punished. Lord Denning advocated this method strenuously, saying we sit here to find the intention of Parliament and we do this better by fill in the gaps than unmannerlying up enactment to destructive analysis.(b) Moji is charged with soliciting from the balcony of her flatMoji is trying to elude the Stre et Offences Act by not being in the street when soliciting for clients.Applying the literal rule Moji will be exonerate and It is obvious parliament could not have intended for their enactments to cause such ineffective results. However, Lord Esher argues the court has nothing to do with the question whether the legislature has committed an absurditybut it is plainly obvious that such an approach is mechanical and divorced from the realities of the use of language (Martin 2007 88) and negates the true spirit of the law.In Smith v Hughes 1960 six women were convicted under this Act for soliciting from their flats, windows and balconies and argued their convictions were wrong because, although they recognised they were engaged in prostitution, they did not contravene the legislations wording which states in a street or public place for the purposes of prostitution (www.opsi.gov.uk on 21/12/09). However, their convictions were upheld, Lord Parker giving judgement Everybody knows this was an Act to clean up the streets. viewed in this way it can matter little whether the prostitute is standing(a) in the street or in the doorway or on the balcony, or at a window, or whether the window is shut or open or half open.In Eastbourne Borough Council v Stirling Times, 16th November 2000 a taxi driver was convicted because, although he was on private land, he targeted for accept people on the street.Bound by these judgements Moji will be convicted as the mischief the Act sought to eliminate was prostitution targeted on streets. This effectively re-writes law and criticism follows that it is an encroachment on the sovereignty of parliament undermines the withdrawal of powers and allows judges to arbitrarily decide cases. However, under the doctrine of judicial precession this can be restricted (Slapper and Kelly 2009). (c) Rosalyn is charged with soliciting from the high streetIn some cases application of the literal rule leads to an absurdity such as Whiteley v Chappel l 1868 where the defendant was charged in accordance with the words to represent any person entitled to vote. He was acquitted because a baseless person is not literally entitled to vote. Another case illustrating the enigma with the literal rule is Cheeseman v DPP Times, 2nd November 1990 where a defendant was acquitted because police officers were not passengers. Had the mischief rule been used it wouldve produced correct verdicts consort to common sense and the intentions of Parliament as the Acts aimed to bring to justice those committing parody and indecency.In some situations though, the literal rule suffices to deliver the intentions of a statute. The Street Offences Act 1959 section 1(4) defines street, amongst other definitions, as for the time being open to the public shall be treated as forming part of the street. A high street is, according to the Oxford English Dictionary 2005, catering to the needs of the ordinary public. With such an interpretation Rosalyn wil l be convicted.