Legal Methods Analysis and Argument
Introduction
This essay examines the different approaches and methods used in courts as the dimensions of Statutory Interpretation. Statutory interpretation is the process involved with the determination of legislation’s meaning to apply it appropriately to case law. The legislations subject to statutory interpretation mostly involve acts of Parliament. The necessity for interpretation sets in due to lack of clarity in the composition of the legislation concerning ambiguity and complexity of words and sentences characterized by equivocation, which may result in poor application contrary to the Legislature’s intentions. However, this essay aim is to examine different statutory interpretation methods and, hence, establish the most suitable method that may be recommended for adoption by the English Courts. Besides, this will be achieved through critical analysis and presentation of valid and logical arguments with different statutory interpretational methods concerning their strengths, weaknesses, advantages, and disadvantages, together with example applications in the historical contexts.
Existing Approaches to Statutory Interpretation
There are several approaches to statutory interpretation. However, this essay examines the most common ones in the English Legal Proceedings. These include; The Literal Rule, the Golden Rule, the Mischief Rule, and the Purposive Approach. Each of these approaches employs different standards, conditions, and methodologies. By evaluating each approach regarding its practical application, the most appropriate method that plays its role, holistically gets the basis of its validation and thus, recommendation.
The Literal Rule
The literal approach to statutory interpretation seeks to present an interpretation literary. This means that the Judge does not place any meaning or sense to the statute, but rather assumes the ordinary meaning of English words. Literal interpretation never allows for investigation into the intentions of the Act, clause, or the entire statute. Besides, literal interpretation does not place any consideration of the situation at hand. The judgment is delivered according to the words of the statute, regardless of the objective considerations.
An example of a case law that such an interpretation was applied was in 1836, R. v., Harris (1836) 7 C 446, a victim was beaten off the nose by a defendant. Under the context, the statute provided it as an offense to “wound, stab or cut” another human being. The defendant had bit the complainant. Thus, under the literal interpretation, the court held that since the implication of the statute was that an object had to be used, biting was not a constitutional offense, and the defendant was declared innocent. Later in the essay, a critical analysis of such a situation will be presented to validate the appropriateness of such interpretations and their implication to justice.
The Golden Approach
The Golden Rule was first used by Lord Wensleydale Golden hence assigned the name, Golden Rule. It is an advancement of the Literal Rule, used to remove absurdity that may arise due to the application of the Literal Rule. It allows the Judge to depart from the literal meaning of words to assign the secondary meaning to help prevent the consequences of the application of the natural meaning of words.
For example, R v Allen (1872) LR 1. CCR 367. Under section 57 of the Offenses Against Persons Act of 1861, “whosoever being married shall marry any other person during the lifetime of the former husband or wife is guilty of an offense.” Under the literal interpretation of this Rule, the Civil Marriage Act would not recognize a second Marriage as constitutional. But when the Golden Rule was applied, the word “Marriage” was assigned the meaning of a ceremony, and the person was charged with Bigamy.
The Mischief Rule
Under this interpretation, the judges are capable of exceeding beyond the Literal Rule and the Golden Rule, of trying and understand the intentions of the Legislature. In other words, the statutory interpretation relies on the perceived intent of the constitutional provision under question. However, it undermines the legislative powers of Parliament since it denies them decision-making power and authority. In the application of this approach to interpretation, the intent of the Legislature as derived from secondary sources. The following questions are asked regarding the application of the approach:
- What law existed before such legislation was passed?
- What was the law or Act passed to deal with?
- What was the possible defect of the common law that existed?
- What remedies did the Legislature intend to cure?
By posing those questions, the court can establish the law’s real intention and the judgment that should be delivered.
For example, in the case of Smith v Hughes in 1960, the Street Offences Act provided that, “It was a crime for prostitutes to loiter and Solicit in the street for prostitution.” The defendants were calling men from windows and balconies. They then went ahead to claim innocence as they never went to the “Streets.” But the Judge applied the mischief rule and interpreted the intent of the Act. The Judge said that the Act was intended to protect people from disturbances, and the people having been disturbed, the Judge said that defendants went against the intention of the constitution and thus, declared guilty and charged.
Purposive Approach
This is the most modern approach to statutory interpretation. The approach seeks to make all considerations subject to scrutiny in a bid to establish justice most appropriately. When applying this method, the judges try to consider the circumstances that the statute is being applied; further, they consider the historical context that the statute was formulated, and lastly, how appropriate is the statute in that particular case law concerning the intent of the Legislature. To establish justice using this kind of a rule, the following questions are asked by the law:
- Is the Parliament’s intent being met when applying this particular statute?
- What is the contextual and purposive circumstance was the law drafted?
- What is the historical background of the application and drafting of the statute?
- What is, and what was the objective of the statute by itself?
- Is justice to be established if this Rule is applied to this particular case law?
These questions ensure that the holistic purpose of having a nation or state governed by the Rule of law is the only road map to justice.
For example, in “Oakville (Town) v. Clublink Corporation ULC (2019)” case, there was contention regarding the definition of the term “structure.” In this particular case, the owner of the golf course wanted to develop it into a residential area. Still, the town rejected the proposed development and consequently drafted a law defining the gulf course as cultural heritage under section 29 of the Ontario Heritage Act. The courts’ decision regarding the definition of “structure” would determine if the private owner would be granted an appeal. Under the broad definition of the term “Structure,” the golf course was defined as one, following the Ontario Heritage Act’s intent and how the broad interpretation would facilitate the establishment of justice. As a result, the appeal was granted through the “ordinary” meaning of structure does not apply to a golf course.
Examining the Advantages and Disadvantages of the Identified Approaches
The Literal Rule
Advantages
The main advantage of that approach applies the Rule according to the meaning of words accorded by the Legislature. This makes the law open to interpretation by the public, thus reducing the probability of public criticism of legal processes. Also, the powers of Parliament are upheld, and the judges are prevented from making law since they are not elected. Also, it prevents unethical judges from interpreting the law to suit personal interests.
Disadvantages
The approach is not realistic since it adopts the assumption that law is perfect, and Parliament does not make mistakes when making laws. Also, the approach assumes that the literal meaning of words adequately covers every situation. Additionally, ambiguity, complexity, and equivocation in words make the meaning of a statute unclear, leading to absurdity in judgments.
Analysis
A literal approach to statutory interpretations may not establish justice since absurdity is rampant. It is not realistic, as assumed by the approach that parliamentary acts cover all situations. Law must have loopholes in terms of interpretation and trending developments. Thus, judges should be given authority to modify any statute with clear guidelines to establish justice. If at all, the approach does not establish justice due to absurdity, then what is the necessity of the law?
The Golden Rule
Advantages
It can be used to reduce the effects of absurdity in judgments.
It allows judges to try and establish justice where a word possesses multiple meanings; thus judges can choose the most appropriate meaning.
It is good at revoking repugnance in judgments.
Disadvantages
It has limited usage since it is only used where a literal approach can lead to absurdity. It is only good for preventing absurd judgments, and not for the establishment of justice.
The law is not clear on the application of the approach; thus, the public and the legal practitioners are never certain when and where the approach may be applied.
Analysis
The golden approach is more of a narrow approach that is not far from the literal Rule since the statutory interpretation is still based on the meaning of the word. The only difference is the avoidance of absurd judgments. Besides, the basis of its approach is that Parliament is still right, and all meaning coded in words represent a sound judgment. This is not applicable in cases where words require natural justice, the intent of the Legislature, and situational application. Hence this approach may be regarded as faulty and inconsistent in the administration of justice.
Mischief Rule
Advantages
It generally identifies and tries to uphold the purpose of legal statutes.
It facilitates the filling of the gaps for which the law was created.
Its probability of establishing justice is very high since the purpose of the law is met.
According to the Law Commission of England, that is the recommended approach.
Disadvantages
The method poses a serious risk of subjecting the judiciary to law-making, thus undermining the law-making process.
The approach is characterized by law uncertainty on the occasions that it can be applied.
Analysis
The uncertainty of the occasions likely to adopt the application makes the public and the legal counsels to question the legal processes with the administration of justice. However, the process is relatively appropriate than the other two methods prior discussed. Besides, the mandate to make law is distributed to the Legislature legally and illegally to the judiciary. This makes the approach partly inappropriate.
Purposive Approach
Advantages
The highest value of this approach is placed on the holistic approach towards the administration of justice.
It accommodates changes and trends in both technology and legal developments due to its wide view.
Its approach to justice is valid due to nits situational and historical considerations rather than the mere meaning of words.
Disadvantages
It ignores the clear literal parliamentary words and their meaning.
The judges get an opportunity to make a law that is wrong.
The intention of Parliament is undermined.
Analysis
This method is ignorant of the intent of Parliament since, the only way to understand the intent of Parliament to adopt the meaning of words used to draft statutes. Thus, the gap that the statute intended to fill may not be filled. However, it is a better approach to legal interpretations since its holistic approach concerning situational analysis and the general purpose of the law is met. Also, absurdity and ambiguity of judgments are catered for. Complexity and equivocation are never in a position to demean justice.
Examination of the Most Appropriate Approaches to Statutory Interpretation
To analytically establish an appropriate statutory interpretational approach, an example is necessary, and it follows.
With regard to “R v S of S for Health ex Parte Quintavalle on behalf of (Pro-Life Alliance) (2003) 2 WLR 692 House of Lords.” The Pro-Life Alliance presented a claim to the court that the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority did not have any constitutional power to license cloning research. The claim was based on the argument that The Human Fertilization and Embryology Act of 1990 granted the latter authority to license research regarding embryos. In the Act, an Embryo was defined as “a live human embryo where fertilization is complete.” Thus, embryos created through cloning are not fertilized and thus, not covered by the Act. After the House of Lords taking a purposive approach towards interpretation of that Act, it held that the Act covered the cloned embryos.
If this case is judged under the literal definition of an embryo, and the golden approach, the authority would have been denied the power to license cloning. Besides, if the application of mischief rule evaluated the case, it would still hold to the judgment under the literal Rule since the gap to be filled by the Legislature was not even measurable in that case. Through this case, the purposive approach rule was used to uphold justice, concerning the intent of the Legislature of granting a certain body, some kind of authority powers and control over human fertilization and embryos.
Conclusion
With regard to the discussion above, the case analysis at every statutory interpretation approach, disadvantages and advantages as coined to their strengths and weaknesses, it is evident to conclude that the best approach to legal interpretation is the Purposive Approach since it possesses the highest probability of upholding justice, the intention of the Legislature, and the purpose of the law which is generally to establish justice and to control injustice.
Bibliography
Atoki, Morayo. “Assault and S 57 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861.” The Journal
of Criminal Law 59, no. 3 (1995): 299-304.
Bennion, F.A.R., and Bennion, F.A.R., 1992. Statutory interpretation: A code. Butterworths.
Bray, Samuel L. “The Mischief Rule.” Notre Dame Legal Studies Paper 19912 (2019).
Fleischer, Holger. “Comparative Approaches to the Use of Legislative History in
Statutory Interpretation.” The UK Journal of Comparative Law 60, no. 2 (2012): 401-437.
Germain, Claire M. “Approaches to statutory interpretation and legislative history in the UK.”
Duke J. Comp. & Int’ l L. 13 (2003): 195.
Hopkins, E. Russell. “The Literal Canon and the Golden Rule.” Can. B. Rev. 15 (1937): 689.
- v. Harris, 7 C. & P. 446 (1836).
R v Allen (1872) LR 1. CCR 367
Smith v. Hughes, 1960 W.L.R.1 830, 1960 All E.R.2 859 (1960).
Williams, JE Hall. “The Street Offences Act, 1959.” The Modern Law Review (1960):
173-179.Gifford, Donald G., William L. Reynolds, and Andrew M. Murad. “A Case Study in the Superiority of the Purposive Approach to Statutory Interpretation: Bruesewitz v. Wyeth.” SCL Rev. 64 (2012): 221.
Oakville (Town) v. Clublink Corporation ULC (2019)
Paul, Michael. “Underwater cultural heritage law and policy in Ontario: History and prospects
for reform.” Ph.D. diss., Environment: Department of Archaeology, 2019.
R v S of S for Health ex Parte Quintavalle on behalf of (Pro-Life Alliance) (2003) 2 WLR
692 House of Lords
Fertilization, Human, and Embryology Authority. “The human fertilization and embryology act
of 1990.” (1990).