Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Precedent
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
==Rules of statutory interpretation== {{Main|Statutory interpretation}} One of the most important roles of precedent is to resolve ambiguities in other legal texts, such as constitutions, statutes, and regulations. The process involves, first and foremost, consultation of the plain language of the text, as enlightened by the legislative history of enactment, subsequent precedent, and experience with various interpretations of similar texts. ===Statutory interpretation in the UK=== A judge's normal aids include access to all previous cases in which a precedent has been set, and a good English dictionary. Judges and barristers in the UK use three primary rules for interpreting the law. Under the [[literal rule]], the judge should do what the actual legislation states rather than trying to do what the judge thinks that it means. The judge should use the plain everyday ordinary meaning of the words, even if this produces an unjust or undesirable outcome. A good example of problems with this method is ''R v Maginnis'' (1987),<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1987/4.html |title=R v Maginnis [1987] UKHL 4 (05 March 1987) |publisher=Bailii.org |date= |accessdate=2022-03-16}}</ref> in which several judges in separate opinions found several different dictionary meanings of the word ''supply''. Another example is ''[[Fisher v Bell]]'', where it was held that a shopkeeper who placed an illegal item in a shop window with a price tag did not make an offer to sell it, because of the specific meaning of "offer for sale" in [[contract law]], merely an invitation to treat. As a result of this case, Parliament amended the statute concerned to end this discrepancy. The [[golden rule (law)|golden rule]] is used when use of the literal rule would obviously create an absurd result. There are two ways in which the golden rule can be applied: a narrow method, and a broad method. Under the narrow method, when there are apparently two contradictory meanings to the wording of a legislative provision, or the wording is ambiguous, the least absurd is to be preferred. Under the broad method, the court modifies the literal meaning in such a way as to avoid the absurd result.<ref name="Lawade">{{cite web |url=http://www.lawade.com/the-english-legal-system/statutory-interpretation/the-golden-rule/ |title=The Golden Rule |website=Lawade.com |access-date=29 March 2018 |date=22 March 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180329220909/http://www.lawade.com/the-english-legal-system/statutory-interpretation/the-golden-rule/ |archive-date=29 March 2018 |url-status=dead }}</ref> An example of the latter approach is ''Adler v George'' (1964). Under the Official Secrets Act 1920 it was an offence to obstruct HM Forces "in the vicinity of" a prohibited place. Adler argued that he was not in the ''vicinity'' of such a place but was actually ''in'' it. The court chose not to read the statutory wording in a literal sense to avoid what would otherwise be an absurd result, and Adler was convicted.<ref>{{cite web|title=Part E - The rules of statutory interpretation - The golden rule|url=http://labspace.open.ac.uk/mod/resource/view.php?id=415851|publisher=Labspace|access-date=11 December 2012}}</ref> The [[mischief rule]] is the most flexible of the interpretation methods. Stemming from ''[[Heydon's Case]]'' (1584), it allows the court to enforce what the statute is intended to remedy rather than what the words actually say. For example, in ''Corkery v Carpenter'' (1950), a man was found guilty of being drunk in charge of a carriage, although in fact he only had a bicycle. The final rule; although will no longer be used after the UK fully transitions out of the European Union. Known as the Purposive approach- this considers the intention of the European Court of Justice when the act was passed. ===Statutory interpretation in the United States=== In the United States, the courts have stated consistently that the text of the statute is read as it is written, using the ordinary meaning of the words of the statute. * "[I]n interpreting a statute a court should always turn to one cardinal canon before all others. ... [C]ourts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there." ''Connecticut Nat'l Bank v. Germain'', [[Case citation|112 S. Ct. 1146, 1149]] (1992). Indeed, "[w]hen the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, this first canon is also the last: 'judicial inquiry is complete.' " * "A fundamental rule of statutory construction requires that every part of a statute be presumed to have some effect, and not be treated as meaningless unless absolutely necessary." ''Raven Coal Corp. v. Absher'', [[Case citation|153 Va. 332]], 149 S.E. 541 (1929). * "In assessing statutory language, unless words have acquired a peculiar meaning, by virtue of statutory definition or judicial construction, they are to be construed in accordance with their common usage." ''Muller v. BP Exploration (Alaska) Inc.'', [http://www.leagle.com/decision/19961706923P2d783_11695.xml/MULLER%20v.%20BP%20EXPLORATION%20(ALASKA)%20INC. 923 P.2d 783], 787–88 (Alaska 1996). However, most legal texts have some lingering ambiguity—inevitably, situations arise in which the words chosen by the legislature do not address the precise facts in issue, or there is some tension among two or more statutes. In such cases, a court must analyze the various available sources, and reach a resolution of the ambiguity. The "Canons of statutory construction" are discussed in a [[Statutory interpretation|separate article]]. Once the ambiguity is resolved, that resolution has binding effect as described in the rest of this article.
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)