Statutes and statutory interpretation, Assignments of Law

Part of legal systems and methods. Describes the components of a statute.

Typology: Assignments

2019/2020

Uploaded on 06/16/2020

Ngacheche
Ngacheche 🇰🇪

1 document

1 / 3

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
COMPONENTS OF A STATUTE
1. Preamble
2. Enacting statement
3. Title/ citation
4. Purpose provisions
5. Commencement and duration provision
6. Application provision
7. Interpretation and definitions
8. Schedule
AIDS TO STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
-Statutory aids
-Non-statutory aids
Statutory aids
Are means contained in the Act that assist in interpretation of the statutes.
The components of a statute may be useful in the interpretation of certain
words and phrases used in the legislation.
e.g.
Under the interpretation section, certain words may be conferred a technical
meaning different from its colloquial meaning. Courts will consider the meaning
given under the statute first and will only resort to other means when the word or
phrase has not been defined under the Statute.
Non-Statutory Aids
Rules developed by the courts to help in the interpretation of statutes. These rules
take different approaches to interpretation of a legislation. The court is not limited
to the use of a particular rule, therefore a judge may choose one rule, while another
judge may prefer a different rule.Thus result in diverse decisions. They include:
- The plain meaning rule
- The Golden rule
- The Mischief rule
Plain meaning rule
pf3

Partial preview of the text

Download Statutes and statutory interpretation and more Assignments Law in PDF only on Docsity!

COMPONENTS OF A STATUTE

  1. Preamble
  2. Enacting statement
  3. Title/ citation
  4. Purpose provisions
  5. Commencement and duration provision
  6. Application provision
  7. Interpretation and definitions
  8. Schedule AIDS TO STATUTORY INTERPRETATION -Statutory aids -Non-statutory aids Statutory aids Are means contained in the Act that assist in interpretation of the statutes. The components of a statute may be useful in the interpretation of certain words and phrases used in the legislation. e.g. Under the interpretation section, certain words may be conferred a technical meaning different from its colloquial meaning. Courts will consider the meaning given under the statute first and will only resort to other means when the word or phrase has not been defined under the Statute. Non-Statutory Aids Rules developed by the courts to help in the interpretation of statutes. These rules take different approaches to interpretation of a legislation. The court is not limited to the use of a particular rule, therefore a judge may choose one rule, while another judge may prefer a different rule.Thus result in diverse decisions. They include:
  • The plain meaning rule
  • The Golden rule
  • The Mischief rule Plain meaning rule

Also known as the literal rule, It is required that words be given their plain, ordinary or literal meaning. The courts main aim is to ascertain the intention of parliament as expressed in the words used. This approach will be used even if it results in absurdity, in which case the remedy is for parliament to amend the statute. One of the leading statements of the literal rule was made by Tindal CJ in the Sussex Peerage case (1884)11 Olefin85: …the only rule for the Construction of Acts of parliament is, that they should be construed according to the intent of Parliament which passed the Act. If the words of the statute are in themselves precise and unambiguous, then no more can be necessary than to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense. The words themselves alone do, in such case best declare the intention of the lawgiver. Lord Esher in R V Judge of the City of London Court [1892] 1 QB 273 averred that If the words of an Acta are clear then you must follow them even though they lead to a manifest absurdity. The court has nothing to do with the question whether the legislature has committed an absurdity. In Fisher v Bell [1960] 3 All ER 731 The defendant, a shopkeeper, displayed in his window a flick knife with a price ticket, and was prosecuted for “Offering for sale” an offensive weapon contrary to the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959. The High Court held that the phrase ‘offers for sale’ was to be taken literally, and be accorded the meaning as in contract law, and that the defendants display of the weapon was no more than an invitation to treat. The court made a presumption that the parliamentary draftsmen knew the technical legal language thus the Common law expression was not altered. In Whitely v Chappell (1869), the defendant casted a vote in the name of a person who had died. The court found the defendant not guilty of personating. The court took the view that the phrase “any person entitled to vote” disentitled the dead person from voting. The plain meaning rule has led to harsh decisions by the courts due to its literal application. In London & North Eastern Railway Company v Berriman(1946)