What Are The Three Canons Of Statutory Interpretation

People suffer in the judicial branch due to a lack of knowledge and power that is being withheld. Many people are not aware of the issues that is happening within the branch which typically causes chaos and destruction. Each judge should possess exceptional qualifications of a judge and be free of political

However the high court have all the rights and power to reconsider common law which was exactly the case in this situation. The role of

The court examines a statute based on the legislature’s intent. Id. When the plain-language of the statute is clear and unambiguous, then the court's interpretation process of the statute is over. Id. at 303. However when there is ambiguity in the statutory language, the court will examine extrinsic evidence.

The rulings of

A statute is a written law that is formally created by a government. He was fined $2,000 dollars and sentenced to one year in prison. Of course he appeals his case. Then the court of Appeals for the 5th district, declares his conviction. Johnson once again appeals his case but this time it turns out to be in his favor.

To begin with, in the judicial system, there is an ongoing dispute over what compromises the proper amount of judicial power. This lack of agreement concerning policymaking power of the Courts is bestowed within the discussion between judicial activism and judicial restraint. In general, these two philosophies represent the conflicting approaches taken by judges in their task of interpretation. Consequently, the Court’s decision could be framed in terms of activism or restraint by either changing or upholding public policy.

This tells people if their act is morally allowed. Rules become “maxim” of how people act. In the book it stated this about rules becoming a “maxim,” “In other words, would you allow your rule to be followed by all people at all time? If so, then your maxim is sounds and your acts is acceptable” (Rachels. 130).

It was revealed by a survey carried out by National Consumer Council how unhappy and unsatisfactory people were with the Civil Justice System. The main weaknesses identified were that the system being too slow, too complicated for ordinary people to understand and too outdated and costly. In the continued criticism of the system Lord Woolf was appointed by the government who came up with suggestions and solutions to overcome these problems. As a result Civil Procedure Rules came into force on 26th April 1999 introducing different reforms to the system. The rationale of the reforms was to avoid litigation and promote settlement between the parties at dispute.

[5] Common law works in a different way, the judges rather than the Parliament make common law or ‘judge-made law’. Considering criminal and civil cases, the judges take decisions based on the stare decisis principle (Latin “to stand by things decided”, the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent [4]), deliver rulings and create precedents, thus applying the law to real life situations. Therefore, the value of the precedent is very high in the English Common Law system. The strengths of common law

Here a compensation tribunal was set up to compensate the families of victims who had died in the Stardust tragedy. The grieving father of one victim sought a review of a decision made by the tribunal to award the mother of a victim compensation and the father no compensation. The court refused to quash the decision of the tribunal and, strangely, agreed that there were circumstances which justified awarding of compensation to one parent and not the other. This decision was made by a court which was quite critical of the approach taken by Lord Diplock in GCHQ. Henchy J. said he would be ‘slow to test reasonableness by seeing if it accords with logic’ and would be ‘equally slow’ to accept the moral standard criteria believing it a vague and inconsistent principle to base reasonableness on.

TRUE SENSE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW: The controversy whether international law is a law or not resolves on the divergent definitions of the word “law” given by the jurist. If we subscribe to the view of Hobbes, Austin and Pufendorf, that law is a command of sovereign enforced by a superior political authority then international law cannot be included in the category of law. On the other hand if, we subscribe to the view that the term“law”cannot be limited to rules enacted by superior political authority, then international law can be included in the category of law. Lawrence aptly remarked that everything depends upon the definition of law which we choose to adopt.

DEFINITION OF LAW: Law is outlined as the principles and regulations set by the governing authority, and have binding legal forces. It must be endorsed and obeyed by the citizens, subject to penalties or legal consequences. It depicts the will of the supreme power of the state. The basic purpose of law is to regulate the society, to safeguard and shield the rights of people and to resolve conflicts. It acts as barrier is preventing people from behaving in a negative manner that affects the rights and quality of life other people, hence violation of law implies the punishment of lawbreakers Dysfunction of Law: Dysfunction of law means failed to abide by the law.

(2004).Statutory interpretation: An introduction for students. Pretoria, Juta And Company LTD. Interpretation of statutes is the juridical understanding of legislation, deals with the body of rules and principles used to construct the correct meaning of legislative meaning to be applied in practical situations. Du Plessis explain it as follows: “Statutory interpretation is about construing enacted law-text with reference to and reliance on other law-texts, concretising the text to be construed so as to cater for the exigencies of an actual or hypothesised concrete situation’’ Rules/ theories of statutory interpretation INTRODUCTION The interpretation of statutes, more precisely, the juridical understanding of legal texts.

In the said case, the counsel for the appellants tried to argue before the Court of Appeal that the decision in the case Rama Chandran v The Industrial Court of Malaysia & Anor was wrong. Because the court was heard in the Federal Court, the Court of Appeal disagreed. It was also

Differences between Parliamentary sovereignty and Constitutional supremacy The doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty of the United Kingdom parliament is often presented as a unique legal arrangement without parallels in comparative constitutional law. By giving unconditional power to the Westminster Parliament, it appears to rule out any comparison between the Westminster Parliament and the United States Congress or the Malaysian Constitution, whose powers are carefully limited by their respective constitutions. Parliamentary sovereignty is thus seen as a unique feature and a result of the unwritten constitution. If parliamentary sovereignty is to be a legal doctrine, it must rely on a list of powers that belong to parliament as an institution. These legal powers are organised in powers and disabilities and are thus both empowering and limiting.