Scribd Logo
Încărcați

Bine ați venit la Scribd!

  • Cases of Statutory Interpretation 2

    Încărcat de

    Purity Marete
    539 vizualizări2 pagini
    The document discusses different rules of statutory interpretation used by courts in the UK - the literal rule, golden rule, and mischief rule. It provides examples of cases where each rule was applied. The literal rule looks only at the plain meaning of the words, while the golden rule interprets provisions in a way that avoids absurd conclusions. The mischief rule considers the problem or mischief the statute was intended to address.

    Descriere originală:

    Titlu original

    CASES OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION 2

    Drepturi de autor

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Formate disponibile

    DOC, PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd

    Vi se pare util acest document?

    Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

    Raportați acest document
    The document discusses different rules of statutory interpretation used by courts in the UK - the literal rule, golden rule, and mischief rule. It provides examples of cases where each rule was applied. The literal rule looks only at the plain meaning of the words, while the golden rule interprets provisions in a way that avoids absurd conclusions. The mischief rule considers the problem or mischief the statute was intended to address.

    Drepturi de autor:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Descărcați ca DOC, PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    539 vizualizări2 pagini

    Cases of Statutory Interpretation 2

    Încărcat de

    Purity Marete
    The document discusses different rules of statutory interpretation used by courts in the UK - the literal rule, golden rule, and mischief rule. It provides examples of cases where each rule was applied. The literal rule looks only at the plain meaning of the words, while the golden rule interprets provisions in a way that avoids absurd conclusions. The mischief rule considers the problem or mischief the statute was intended to address.

    Drepturi de autor:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Descărcați ca DOC, PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    din 2

    Literal rule

    Whitely v Chappel (1868) LR 4 QB 147 A statute made it an offence 'to impersonate any person entitled to vote.' The defendant used the vote of a dead man. The statute relating to voting rights required a person to be living in order to be entitled to vote. Held: The literal rule was applied and the defendant was thus acquitted.

    Golden rule
    R v Allen (1872) LR 1 CCR 367 The defendant was charged with the offence of bigamy .The statute states 'whosoever being married shall marry any other person during the lifetime of the former husband or wife is guilty of an offence'. Under a literal interpretation of this section the offence would be impossible to commit since civil law will not recognise a second marriage any attempt to marry in such circumstances would not be recognised as a valid marriage.

    Held: The court applied the golden rule and held that the word 'marry' should be interpreted as 'to go through a marriage ceremony'. The defendant's conviction was upheld. B. Adler v George [1964] 2 QB 7 Under the Official Secrets Act 1920 it was an offence to obstruct a member of the armed forces 'in the vicinity' of a prohibited palace. The defendant was actually in the prohibited place, rather than 'in the vicinity' of it, at the time of obstruction. Held: The court applied the golden rule. It would be absurd for a person to be liable if they were near to a prohibited place and not if they were actually in it. His conviction was therefore upheld MISCHIEF RULE

    Smith v Hughes [1960] 1 WLR 830 The defendants were prostitutes who had been charged under the Street Offences Act 1959 which made it an offence to solicit in a public place. The prostitutes were soliciting from private premises in windows or on balconies so could be seen by the public. Held: The court applied the mischief rule holding that the activities of the defendants were within the mischief the Act was aimed at even though under a literal interpretation they would be in a private place.

    B.
    Corkery v Carpenter [1951] 1 KB 102 The defendant was riding his bicycle whilst under the influence of alcohol. S.12 of the Licensing Act 1872 made it an offence to be drunk in charge of a 'carriage' on the highway.

    Held: The court applied the mischief rule holding that a riding a bicycle was within the mischief of the Act as the defendant represented a danger to himself and other road users.

    S-ar putea să vă placă și