Menu

The Principles and Rules used by Jundges to Interpret Statutes

0 Comment

According to the fictitious Act that has been used for his arrest, if Derek is defined as an employee than he is considered exempt, but if by throwing a party he has acted independently of that definition, then he is guilty of the charges. The following discussion will consider the position of Derek in relationship with his charged offense and use the rules and principles that judges utilize in order to make a judgement about the problem of the party. The definition of Derek’s position in relationship to his use of the land is vital in order to come to a well rendered conclusion. Judges and the Law The interpretation of a law becomes common law when a statute does not directly address an aspect of a situation that comes for judgment and a ruling will help to define that aspect. A judge, however, will not come into contradiction with a standing law in order to favor a different outcome to a trial (Miller and Cross 2011, p. 12). The intention of this structure is so that the law is consistent to the point at which it has already been defined, but is flexible at the points that have yet to be defined. In this way, the law grows and benefits from the learning process as human experience is developed and knowledge is gained. One of the most debatable positions on the standard of the rights of judges to debate the merits of law is through the the rule in Heydon’s Case which was defined in 1584. Lord Coke said at that time that The office of all the judges is always to make such construction as shall suppress the mischief, and advance the remedy, and to suppress subtle inventions, and evasion for continuance of the mischief and pro private commodo, and to add force and life to the cure and remedy, according to the true intent of the makers of the Act, pro bono publico (Solan 2010). This statement, whether or not one believed in the context from which it was created, clearly states that the law is the intention of interpretations by judges. There are fixed rules and principles by which law is interpreted by judges in England in order to put limitations on the liberties that judges might use when interpreting statutes. A statute must be interpreted with equity so that the fairness of the law is the defining principle upon which it is interpreted. Where case law and legislative law come into conflict, Parliamentary Sovereignty is the ruling principle in which legislation will be considered over case law. Substantive law dictates that a law must be defined by standards of moral intent that are in line with the general understanding of right and wrong. Deference suggests that where others have interpreted law in one direction, it is likely that the law should continue in that direction of interpretation (Smith 1848, p. 828). Derek’s Position: Discussion The fictitious Prohibition of Unsolicited Parties Act 2010 suggests that ‘a gathering of more than a hundred people on land for a social purpose in which alcohol will be consumed’ (section 1) is a criminal offense when permission for this event has not been organised under the permission of a local magistrate (section 2). The exception to this, which is laid out in section 3 is that the occupant of the land, his family, his employee, or an agent operating under his