Before the Norman conquest, the administration of Justice was integrally given to local courts accordingly to local customs. There was no idea of centralisation. The situation changed when William the Conqueror gained the throne in 1066, because he set up the Curia Regis based in Westminster with judges approved by the King. In 1156, ‘itinerant Royal justices’ was created, so that judges appointed by the King can dispense justice in his name in the whole country. The King didn’t abolish the former system, but created another one. People could choose the system they would be judged by. There was a preference for the royal court. These itinerant judges gradually elaborated a common uniform jurisprudence in the whole England. Common …show more content…
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 of Parliament. The intention of Parliament is a delicate concept for representing the majority option of Member of Parliament how is representative for the United Kingdom citizens.
For all Parliament is the legislator, Courts must apply legislation through the discretion of judges. However lawyers and barristers may also interpret the statutes to convince the judges.
Courts have several roles. There is a dichotomy between statuary interpretation and statutory construction. The first one is « the provision of meaning to the words in a statute by a court » and the second one is « the resolution of ambiguities or uncertainties in a statue ».
B) Is statutory interpretation binding of any kind of rule of law ?
Statutory interpretation is mandatory for judges, only the way of interpretation is not mandatory.
Parliament has given the courts some sources of guidance on statutory interpretation.
The interpretation Act 1978 provides certain standard definitions of
Legislation is a law or a couple of laws made by the government and finalised by the parliament. The parliament decides whether the legislation is good enough or needs improvement.
Statutory interpretation is required where complication and ambiguity arises as to what the section actually provides and to whom is within the provisions. There are numerous occurrences where judges call for statues to be interpreted further in more depth; such as failure of legislation to cover a point, a broad term, drafting
Statutory interpretation is the legal process whereby a judge applies a statute to a case and must give meaning to the words in the statute in order to decide what they mean and how it should be applied to a particular case. When interpreting statutes, the judges’ role is to put into effect the Parliaments wishes. Conflicts may arise when deciding if the intention of Parliament can be found in the words of the statute itself or whether judges should acquire into the purpose of the Act then interpret the words themselves. In order to interpret these
Statutory purpose is a paramount tool in Breyer’s pragmatism. Indeed, it is one of the two tools (the second we will see later) that he has found to be “the most useful” (Yale 12) because it conduces one of pragmatism’s central values: sustaining the work of democracy. Ordinarily, the pragmatist turns to statutory purpose “when statutory language does not clearly answer the question of what the statute means or how it applies” (Breyer 85). However, the majority uses purpose in a slightly different way here. Rather than using it to modify its interpretation of the CSA, the majority uses statutory purpose to analogize it with the AAA: “Just as the [AAA] was designed ‘to control the volume
The main role of the courts is to interpret and apply the law. In terms of a criminal justice process the court serves as the place in which a trial is heard and a sentence decided.
Merit –compare and contrast the role of judges ,lawyers and lay people within the English courts.
agencies today are increasingly reliant on the third type of rulemaking due to both the cumbersome nature of the formal rulemaking process and the ease with which information can be disseminated to the public through the Internet. Generally, there are two categories of deference that courts grant an administrative agency’s interpretation of law, depending on the categorization of the administrative action in question. If agency action amounts to formal rulemaking, it is analyzed using a two-part test established in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. If the agency action does not constitute formal rulemaking, courts use the factors established in Skidmore v. Swift & Co. to determine if deference should be granted.
On observing the District Court a number of distinctions from the Local Courts were immediately made apparent. Without going in to detail about the actual structure of the courts, they seemed to fit more closely with the traditional schema of a typical courtroom. In particular the larger courtrooms with more facilities combined with the barristers and magistrates wearing their wig and robes seemed to instantly uphold the ideology of justice. It is interesting to note how appearances can automatically provide an impression that justice will be upheld. The
Since implementation the Act has simplified and improved the regulation of legal service provision in England and Wales and has created a framework for legal services to be provided. The regulatory objectives and professional principles are set out in section 1 of the Act.
This essay will discuss the role of the magistrate and jury in the English and Welsh legal decision-making process. It will assess both the advantages and disadvantages of both mechanisms and give an opinion on the contribution they make in the process.
Statutory interpretation is process of interpreting statutes by the judges. The definition of statutes have had very specific words but indeed the judges would still need the statutory interpretation to help them. The reason of this, even how, the words in the statutes are specific but sometimes the words contains ambiguity and vagueness in words. On top of that, each word could give us different meaning. For example, we can find in the Oxford Dictionary where a word would contain at least one meaning. Hence, without the statutory interpretation, a lot of judges would have trouble in deciding their judgments in deciding a case. This essay will analyse the four rules, intrinsic aids and extrinsic aids and presumptions in the interpretation
1. When interpreting legislation, the Courts use several approaches to aid their interpretation. Describe how the literal, golden and mischief rules of interpretation operate.
The courts of the United Kingdom are institutions there are aim justice to all and deliver fair and equal trails. Although ‘fair and equal’ are not always true to some cases along with ‘justice to all’. Never the less either convicting someone for unlawful activity or resolving a civil dispute, the British legal system employs a variety of courts in its application of the law. It much reminds me of my home country the United States the different level of courts I mean. Magistrates courts have the jurisdiction to try minor offences then for more serious offences are referred to the Crown courts. There are also appellate courts, which include the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court; formally known as the House of Lords. To
Explain and critically consider the use of lay magistrates in the legal system of England and Wales.
The Rules of the Statutory interpretation are The literal rule (IRC v Hinchy, 1960), the golden rule(R v Allen, 1872), The mischief rule (Smith v Hughes, 1960) and The Ejusdem generis rule (Powell v Kempton Racecourse, 1899) The golden rule of statutory interpretation may be applied where an application of the literal rule would lead to an absurdity(R v Allen (1872) LR 1 CCR 367). This is law/ legislation, which has been enacted by Parliament and through administrative process. The law enacted by Parliament is known as an Act of Parliament.