Statutory Interpretation

When it comes to legal disputes, whether civil or criminal in nature, the judge in the court resolves the case according to the provisions mentioned in the law enacted by the parliament and the constitutional provisions. However, in order to settle the problem according to established law, a thorough comprehension of the law is required, which is called the process of statutory interpretation. In other words, the process through which courts interpret and implement legislation in a legally challenged situation is known as statutory interpretation. When there has been no earlier judgement by a higher court on the same issue, this statutory interpretation is sometimes done directly from the legal terms mentioned in the act. If, on the other hand, this interpretation of the law is based on a previously determined subject that is also binding on the subordinate court authority, this is referred to as adhering to the principle of judicial precedent (Solan, 2015). As a result, the purpose of this article is to explore how the theory of statute interpretation and judicial precedent works, as well as the benefits and drawbacks of this principle of judicial precedent. 

In general, the law in the country governs all citizens of the country in accordance with the idea of parliament sovereignty. This idea gives the parliament supreme power to establish laws, and no court has the authority to overturn legislation enacted by the legislature. As a result, when a legal disagreement comes before the court and the court is unable to determine the exact meaning of the legislation adopted by the parliament, the court uses the statutory interpretation clause. In this process, the court uses authoritative forms to determine the meaning of the legislative in order to resolve any legal disputes (Sanson, 2012). However, the court has a legal obligation to interpret and implement every statute in a way that is compatible with Parliament’s legal authority to enact it in this case. In a small number of circumstances, what is referred to as “interpretation” could be considered disobedience disguised as a “noble lie.” However, if this becomes more common and is tolerated by the other departments of government, Parliament will no longer be sovereign. At this point in statutory interpretation, the court seeks to bridge the gap that develops while interpreting the legislation due to the legislator’s and judiciary’s differing intentions (Delaney, 2013).

Then to perform the judicial interpretation there are four rules that is followed by the judiciary in the English legal system as these are literal rule, golden rule, mischief rule, and purposive approach. Firstly. literal rule is related to the ordinary and plain interpretation of the statute. In the case of Whitely v Chappel, this was decided. It was decided in this case that it was illegal to “impersonate any person authorised to vote” under a statute. The defendant cast a vote for a deceased person. To be eligible to vote, a person had to be alive according to the voting rights act. So, in the end, the court settled the case using the literal rule, and the defendant was acquitted. Further golden rule works in opposite manner here the court interprets the law by taking into account the legislature’s intent. The next rule is the mischief rule. This rule requires the court to determine the provisions relating to any particular topic before passing legislation on it, in order to determine the deficit or mischief for which the legislation was enacted (Open Learn Uniersity, 2021). The final option is to take a purposeful approach. This method ensures that the law is effective in the way that Parliament intended (Bray, 2020). This was argued in the case of Pickstone v Freemans plc [1989] AC 66 where it was specified that parliament cannot amend the law retroactively. Mens rea is crucial in criminal procedures (Solan, 2015). 

Judicial Precedent

However, it is important to note that this statutory interpretation is not limited to the parliament’s established law; when a previous higher court’s decision or a decision by the same court in the same type of disputed matter is considered, this is referred to as the principle of judicial precedent. In concern to the judicial precedent, general rule is this, if the UK Supreme Court issues a ruling in any civil or criminal matter after properly interpreting the law, that decision is binding on lower courts if the same sort of dispute is brought before that lower authority court. To put it another way, a precedent is an idea that has been established in a previous case judgement and will be applicable in future court cases involving the same facts or similar concerns (Kozel, 2014). The principle underlying this precedent is known as “stare decisis,” which means “to stand in the thing that has been decided.” Stare decisis is a legal principle that requires a court or legal body to rule on the current contested matter using the rules established in a previous judgement. This is also known as the judicial law-making principle, and the purpose of judicial law-making is to assist the subordinate court or later court in passing a decision on the same disputed matter on a timely basis and to provide parties with justified decisions because when a matter has been decided by a higher court authority previously, there are more chances that all legal provisions must have been considered. But at the last it is also important to know these principles of judicial precedent are not applicable to arbitration system. Arbitration is the system of dispute resolution where the third party called arbitrator decides the dispute between the parties that can be mandatory or voluntary ( Holden, 2020).  

In light of the above-mentioned concept of judicial precedent, this provision can be regarded to be useful or advantageous to the country’s legal system. In terms of the benefits or advantages of judicial law making, there are a few factors to examine, such as the fact that it promotes legal justice in society by guaranteeing that all current problems are decided in a manner that is comparable to previous decisions. In this way, the country’s legal system becomes more consistent and predictable (Kozel, 2014). However, it cannot be claimed that this is a hard provision because the lower court is required to obey the decision of the higher court because, when a case reaches a lower court, that court has the authority to evaluate the rule before making a decision. If the case is taken to a higher court, the higher court will have the right to change its past rulings as needed to reflect evolving socioeconomic circumstances (Chiassoni, 2012). And when a matter is decided by a subordinate or lower court based on the decision of a previous higher court, it saves time for the later court because the later court does not have to consider the law provisions in detail, and the current matter can be decided with the reference of the previous case, which saves time for the court (Waldron, 2012).

Advantages and Disadvantages of Judicial Precedent

However, while this provision of judicial law making has certain advantages, it might also have some drawbacks. The most common issue that comes to mind in terms of downsides is that the later or subordinate court does not analyse the law provisions in the same way that the prior court did, therefore there is no possibility for this provision to save the court’s time (Martin, 2014). As a result, the factor of rigidity is introduced because the subordinate court is bound by the decision of the higher court, stretching the legal matter in terms of appeal further because the subordinate courts have a limited liability to apply their minds, and when the matter is not decided properly, parties approach the appellate authority (Chiassoni, 2012). 

Conclusion

As a consequence of the discussion, it can be stated that, while the parliament has created the law, the law alone cannot bring justice to the parties involved in legal disputes before the court, and therefore the judicial system functions in society. Furthermore, the judicial system can only provide justice if the legislators’ true intent is known. The judiciary’s assessment of the legislator’s intent is known as statutory interpretation, and it must be compatible with the legislator’s intent. In this approach, once a proper statutory interpretation decision is made, it becomes law for the lower court authority until the high court that made the decision changes it. Finally, this judicial precedent was developed to assist parties who have become stuck in a legal problem; but, in order for this judicial precedent principle to be effective, it must be followed in light of current changing situations in society.

References

Holden, D., 2020. What is Arbitration? All You Need to Know About The Process. [Online]
Available at: https://burlingtonslegal.com/insight/what-is-arbitration-all-you-need-to-know-about-the-process/
[Accessed March 2022].

Bray, S., 2020. The Mischief Rule. Geo. LJ,, Volume 109, p. 967.

Chiassoni, P., 2012. The philosophy of precedent: conceptual analysis and rational reconstruction.. On the philosophy of precedent, pp. 13-33.

Delaney, E., 2013. udiciary Rising: Constitutional Change in the United Kingdom. Nw. UL Rev, Volume 108, p. 543.

Ingman, T., 2011. The English legal process.. s.l.:s.n.

Kozel, R., 2014. The scope of precedent. Michigan Law Review, 113(2), pp. 179-230.

Martin, J., 2014. English legal system. s.l.:s.n.

Open Learn Uniersity, 2021. The golden rule. [Online]
Available at: https://www.open.edu/openlearn/society-politics-law/judges-and-the-law/content-section-6.3
[Accessed March 2022].

Sanson, M., 2012. Statutory interpretation. s.l.:s.n.

Solan, L., 2015. Precedent in Statutory Interpretation. NCL , Volume 94, p. 1165.

Waldron, J., 2012. Stare decisis and the rule of law: a layered approach. Michigan Law Review, 111(1), pp. 1-31.