Describe how jurors qualify and are selected for service
Statutory Interpretation Model Answers
Explain, the rules judges may use when interpreting Acts of Parliament
There are four different rules judges can use when interpreting Acts of Parliament. The literal rule is when judges have to take the natural, ordinary or dictionary meaning of a word or phrase and apply it to the case in hand. This rule leads to absurd and unjust results. The literal rule occurred in LNER V Berriman case. An Act made it a duty to provide a look-out man wherever a railwayman was ‘repairing or relaying’ the track. His employer didn’t provide him with a look-out man and Mr Berriman was killed by a train. Mr Berriman’s widow claimed compensation, but was unsuccessful. The courts applied the literal rule and the words ‘repairing and relaying’ did not cover oiling points since this was merely maintaining the line.
The golden rule is an extension of the literal rule. It allows the court to look at the literal meaning of a word or phrase, but then avoid using a literal interpretation if this would lead to an absurd result.
There are two approaches within the golden rule. Firstly there is the narrow approach where judges read the two meanings of the word or phrase and apply the meaning which avoids an absurdity. This happened in the Allen (1872) case where the defendant was accused of being married twice. The word ‘marry’ can either mean to become legally married to another or means to go through a ceremony of marriage. The judge applied the second meaning to avoid an absurdity.
Secondly, there is the broad approach where judges modify the meaning of a word or phrase to avoid absurdities. The case Re Sigsworth (1935) uses the broad approach. Here the deceased had not made a will so her estate should have been divided among the ‘issue’, that is her children. The dead woman had only one son who had murdered her. The court applied the broad application of the golden rule to avoid the absurd result whereby a murderer could inherit his/her
Explain, the rules judges may use when interpreting Acts of Parliament
There are four different rules judges can use when interpreting Acts of Parliament. The literal rule is when judges have to take the natural, ordinary or dictionary meaning of a word or phrase and apply it to the case in hand. This rule leads to absurd and unjust results. The literal rule occurred in LNER V Berriman case. An Act made it a duty to provide a look-out man wherever a railwayman was ‘repairing or relaying’ the track. His employer didn’t provide him with a look-out man and Mr Berriman was killed by a train. Mr Berriman’s widow claimed compensation, but was unsuccessful. The courts applied the literal rule and the words ‘repairing and relaying’ did not cover oiling points since this was merely maintaining the line.
The golden rule is an extension of the literal rule. It allows the court to look at the literal meaning of a word or phrase, but then avoid using a literal interpretation if this would lead to an absurd result.
There are two approaches within the golden rule. Firstly there is the narrow approach where judges read the two meanings of the word or phrase and apply the meaning which avoids an absurdity. This happened in the Allen (1872) case where the defendant was accused of being married twice. The word ‘marry’ can either mean to become legally married to another or means to go through a ceremony of marriage. The judge applied the second meaning to avoid an absurdity.
Secondly, there is the broad approach where judges modify the meaning of a word or phrase to avoid absurdities. The case Re Sigsworth (1935) uses the broad approach. Here the deceased had not made a will so her estate should have been divided among the ‘issue’, that is her children. The dead woman had only one son who had murdered her. The court applied the broad application of the golden rule to avoid the absurd result whereby a murderer could inherit his/her