Examples Of Statutory Interpretation

Statutory interpretation

Statutory interpretation is when the bill or the law of parliament is tested upon a case. The law should be clear and concise so that everyone understands its purpose. It may have been clear when it was checked by the parliament but judges applying it to an actual case uncovers its flaws, making it troublesome in future cases and conveys what needs to be amended.

Over the course of many years, the English law gradually started to develop, and implemented three different rules of interpretation in the likes of the:

• Literal rule

• Golden rule

• Mischief rule

Literal rule

Literal rules should be used in its standard form and words that it naturally states without adding anything on to it. It simply should be an

The mischief rule conveys the parliaments intentions clearly by allowing judges to use their knowledge and common sense. Furthermore, judges can take in account the changes in technology and social when deciding on a case with the ability to look at external aids. For example, trying to prove a hacker guilty is more possible than ever before thanks to advancement in technology. However, trying to figure out the parliaments intentions can be difficult and, in some cases, it can only be discovered from what they have written in the act. Moreover, the mischief rule is quite old and is not able to fit with today’s needs as the world of law has changed dramatically from when the rule was first made. Last but not least is the fact that a judge changing a statutory meaning can bring some

Wesson who committed a robbery at a post office with a plastic toy gun, is being debated if he should be judged under the firearms act 1968 with a plastic gun that is unable to shoot with real harmful bullets. Though, the case of R v Bentham should be carefully looked at. The court decided that someone trying to have a real gun or one which imitates a gun is enough of a conviction, or even trying to put fear in to others by doing so. In this case the literal rule would be best suited as it conveys how the parliament had interpreted the law in the first place.

The case of Mrs P. Street killed her husband to claim all of the estate solely being the beneficiary. However, in the case of Re Sigsworth the judge applied the golden rule so that he could alter the law to ensure that a murderer couldn’t benefit from a crime committed which otherwise would be possible under the literal rule. This also prevents an absurd outcome to be