Explain the Different Approaches to the Interpretation of Statutes in England and Wales
(a) Explain the different approaches to the interpretation of statutes in England and Wales.
Statutory interpretation is the process of a judge interpreting and applying legislation. Interpretation of statutes is necessary as many of them where written hundreds of years ago and language has changed. Society has also changed and so statutes need to be applied to modern society. Drafting errors may have been made when the statute was written which would then require interpretation. For example, the board term of 'type' used in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Judges use a number of rules and aids in order to interpret these laws. However, there are disadvantages of interpretation. It is Parliament's role to make laws and the role of the Judiciary to enforce them. If a judge interprets a law to their desired outcome, rather than Parliament's desired outcome, Parliamentary sovereignty is not respected. Interpretation may require the personal opinion of a judge, and as judges are unelected, it may be seen as undemocratic. The literal rule is when the exact words of the statute are applied. This rule respects Parliamentary sovereignty and the use of this rule was favoured in England and Wales until the use of the purposive approach became more frequent. In the case of R v Bentham (2005) Bentham pretended he had a gun under his coat when it was fingers. He was convicted under the Firearms Act 1968 of having 'in his possession a firearm or imitation firearm.' As the literal rule was used it was said that the word 'possession' did not include someone's fingers. However, the literal rule can give absurd results. In the case of London and North Eastern Railway Co. v Berriman (1946) a railway worker's wife was not given compensation following her husband's death while doing maintenance on the track. The Act said that compensation would only be given if someone was killed while 'repairing or relaying' track. Lord Esher said in 1892: 'The court has nothing to do with the
Statutory interpretation is the process of a judge interpreting and applying legislation. Interpretation of statutes is necessary as many of them where written hundreds of years ago and language has changed. Society has also changed and so statutes need to be applied to modern society. Drafting errors may have been made when the statute was written which would then require interpretation. For example, the board term of 'type' used in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Judges use a number of rules and aids in order to interpret these laws. However, there are disadvantages of interpretation. It is Parliament's role to make laws and the role of the Judiciary to enforce them. If a judge interprets a law to their desired outcome, rather than Parliament's desired outcome, Parliamentary sovereignty is not respected. Interpretation may require the personal opinion of a judge, and as judges are unelected, it may be seen as undemocratic. The literal rule is when the exact words of the statute are applied. This rule respects Parliamentary sovereignty and the use of this rule was favoured in England and Wales until the use of the purposive approach became more frequent. In the case of R v Bentham (2005) Bentham pretended he had a gun under his coat when it was fingers. He was convicted under the Firearms Act 1968 of having 'in his possession a firearm or imitation firearm.' As the literal rule was used it was said that the word 'possession' did not include someone's fingers. However, the literal rule can give absurd results. In the case of London and North Eastern Railway Co. v Berriman (1946) a railway worker's wife was not given compensation following her husband's death while doing maintenance on the track. The Act said that compensation would only be given if someone was killed while 'repairing or relaying' track. Lord Esher said in 1892: 'The court has nothing to do with the