1) INTRODUCTION: The enactment of both interim and final Constitutions ushered in a new approach to statutory interpretation. In this essay I argue that the statement made by the court in Daniels v Campbell 2003 (9) BCLR 969 ( C ) at 985 is TRUE. 2) THE INTERPRETATIVE APPROACH ADOPTED BY SOUTH AFRICAN COURTS PRE- 1994: Before 1994 South Africa was a country based on Apartheid rules and regulations. The Parliament was the highest legislative body and it interpreted laws as it pleased, mostly in
Judges have the ability to interpret almost any statue in several different ways, using the nature of language and by giving some words in a statue meaning. When applying statutory laws, judges try to find out the intention of parliament when passing the law. In order to interpret the meaning of a statue, the courts have developed several ‘rules’. These rules can be divided into 3 categories: • The Literal Rule • The Golden
Statutory interpretation is a procedure executed by judges when understanding an Act of Parliament, which transpires when they are confronted with new components of legislation including definitions which are not distinctly conveyed. The courts retain the responsibility when the implications of that statute are ambiguous to ascertain Parliaments objectives on how the law should be applied. This essay will examine the approaches and methodical rules which direct judges in the interpretation of statutes
Both statutory interpretation and the Human Rights Act are a doctrine of precedent by which law is changed and justice is served. The doctrine of precedent is an essential principle of English legal system, which is a form of reasoning, interpreting and decision making formed by case law. It suggests that precedents not only have persuasive authority but must also be shadowed when similar situations arise. Any rule or principle declared by a higher court must be followed in future cases. In short
Parliament is sovereign, therefore the law it makes prevail on any other source. We will focus the working of statutory interpretation (A), then look if it’s regulated by the law (B) and scrutinized rules of interpretation (C). A) The operation of statutory interpretation Statutory interpretation deals with Statute law. Indeed an interpretation may be required when there is an ambiguity or if there is an error made by Parliament. Rolle of judges is to ascertain the intention
There are two processes that have to be implemented before making a new law, the pre-legislative process and the legislative process. The pre-legislative process is when the bill is introduced, at this point it 's not called a bill and can be referred to as tera nulus. It can derive from a political party 's manifesto and Queens speech. It will go through consultation, where it is taken to specialists and the document is debated and suggestions are made. Once the feedback has been provided and goes
If the Narrow approach is applied it would usually be because the word themselves lead to an absurd result for example if there is a sign that say “do not use lifts in case of a fire” interpreted literally it would mean “to never use lifts, in case of a fire” which would lead to an absurd result but clearly it is to prevent people from using the lifts if there is a fire nearby. The wide approach is were the word has only one meaning but the meaning could
country. Generally, statutes, and, prohibit or declare something and sometimes, they are also called as legislation. In this way, statutory interpretation means the interpretation of the statutes by the courts. This interpretation takes place when an Act of the Parliament is not clear and as a result, it creates uncertainty in the law. Therefore, statutory interpretation is required when an Act passed by the Parliament is not clear, for example a term could have been used to covers a number of opportunities
Constitutional Interpretation: Engineers’ Case and criticisms of Callinan J in the Workchoices’ Case. By Mark Walker Introduction In the dissenting judgment made by Callinan J in the landmark New South Wales v Commonwealth (“Workchoices’ Case”), a strong criticism was mounted against constitutional interpretation methods employed in the judicial forum. Explicitly, this conjecture was focused at Isaacs J’s judgement in Amalgamated Society of Engineers v Adelaide Steamship Co Ltd (“Engineers’
Woolmington principle, it does not inevitably necessitate that the law has been unfaithful to its underlying rationale. A common deduction of the Woolmington principle is that Sankey, in his judgement, is ambiguous and left too much open to interpretation. Furthermore, it has been argued by Adrian Zuckerman that the way in which something is written can in fact lead to a justified imposition of a legal burden on the defendant and that the accused will only have to prove their innocence by disclosing