100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
Previously searched by you
Previously searched by you
logo
Introduction to English Law and Legal Method/UK Constitutional Law Essay R94,43
Add to cart
Quickly navigate to
Preview
  2.  
  3. Durham University (DUT)
  4.  
  5. Law (LAW1121)

Essay

Introduction to English Law and Legal Method/UK Constitutional Law Essay
 0 purchase
  • Course
  • Law (LAW1121)
  • Institution
  • Durham University (DUT)

“While speaking of Parliamentary intention may be said to remind the courts of the need to avoid crossing the important constitutional line between interpreting and legislating, and in that sense it is a constant reminder of the separation of powers, it can too easily become a mask for judges to ...

[Show more]

Preview 2 out of 9  pages

Document information

  • October 9, 2022
  • 9
  • 2021/2022
  • Essay
  • Unknown
  • A+

Subjects

  • uk constitutional law
  • essay
  • llb
  • introduction to english law and legal method

Written for

  • Durham University (DUT)
  • Unknown
  • Law (LAW1121)
All documents for this subject (8)

Seller

avatar-seller
legalwarrior1

Reviews received

Content preview

This essay will first explore the contextual importance of the separation of powers to recognise the

jurisprudential role of the judiciary in deciphering the meaning of ambiguous statutes. Secondly, it

will argue that judges should determine the purpose of a statute rather than assume the legislator’s

intention due to the latter’s threat to the separation of powers and parliamentary sovereignty. 1 The

different approaches to statutory interpretation will be then analysed regarding their benefits,

drawbacks, and constitutional implications. Finally, it will be concluded that the golden rule is the

most suitable compromise of the literal and mischief rules because it enables conditional flexibility

but still circumscribes the judiciary within its jurisprudential role.




The separation of powers is a critical component of both the UK constitution and rule of law. The

three branches of government - the legislature, executive and judiciary – are divided institutionally

and in function to avoid concentrations of power, preserve liberty and promote the efficiency of

government.2 Therefore, the judicial task is the fair and impartial interpretation and application of

legislation to the factual cases that come before the court. 3 It is fundamental that judges do not

cross the line into legislating, as this would threaten parliamentary sovereignty.




To safeguard the separation of powers, judges should interpret statutes ‘without the pretence of

legislative intent’4 for two reasons. Firstly, the concept is devoid of proper content and unhelpful as

there is no clear and accepted understanding of the notion, 5 rendering it impossible to factually

construct. With ‘intention being a characteristic of a singular mind’, 6 how can judges aggregate the

intentions of Parliament, the enacting majority along with the writers? 7 Secondly, the concept of

1
Charles de Secondat Montesquieu and Thomas Nugent, The Spirit of Laws, (1st edn, Batoche Books 2001).
2
Robert Masterman, and Colin Murray, Constitutional and Administrative law (2nd edn, Pearson 2018) 224.
3
Ibid.
4
John Manning, “Without the Pretense of Legislative Intent” (2017) 130 Harv. L. Rev. 2397.
5
Andrew Burrows, Thinking About Statutes: Interpretation, Interaction, Improvement (2018).
6
John Laws, 'Statutory Interpretation – The Myth of Parliamentary Intent' (Institute of Advanced Legal Studies,
2017).
7
Ronald Dworkin, Law’s Empire 318.

Page 1 of 9

, parliamentary intention is contrary to the separation of powers because it results in a subjective

execution of the interpretive exercise. Judges try to ‘think into the minds of the enacting legislators

and imagine how they would have wanted the statute applied to the case’.8 This encourages the

influence of implicit biases on statutory interpretation, contradicting the judiciary’s jurisprudential

role to provide an impartial and fair adjudication of the law. Therefore, pursuing parliamentary

intention ‘become[s] a mask for judges to hide their true reasoning’ 9 to be actively involved in

shaping social policy and the common law.




To determine statutory purpose, there are three main rules of statutory interpretation: the literal

rule, mischief rule and golden rule. In the absence of ambiguity, the literal rule is used to give the

words of a statute their ordinary meaning, as defined in Sussex Peerage Case.10 Concerning

constitutionalism, this rule successfully restricts the role of the judge and prevents the influence of

prejudices on legislation to uphold parliamentary sovereignty and give an appearance of impartiality.

Despite this ideal, there is often disagreement as to what constitutes the ordinary meaning such as

with the word ‘supply’ in R v Maginnis 11. This causes judges to determine the meaning of a statute

through the infliction of personal views meaning that the literal rule can subsequently act as a mask

for the judiciary to disguise active interpretation with the choice of a narrow or wide interpretation

of the matter, as was the case in Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission. 12 Another

disadvantage of the literal rule includes the creation of loopholes in the law, as demonstrated in

Fisher v Bell13 where the display of a flick-knife in a shop window, contrary to the Offensive Weapon

Act 1959, was held to be an invitation to treat and not an offer to sale. Therefore, literalism is

impractical as the creation of difficult precedents command time to rectify because it fails to address


8
John Manning, “Without the Pretense of Legislative Intent” (2017) 130 Harv. L. Rev. 2397.
9
Andrew Burrows, Thinking About Statutes: Interpretation, Interaction, Improvement (2018).
10
Sussex Peerage Case (1844) 1 Cl & F 85, 86.
11
R v Maginnis (1987) AC 303.
12
Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission (1969) 2 AC 147.
13
Fisher v Bell (1961) QB 394.

Page 2 of 9

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.

Quick and easy check-out

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through EFT, credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

Focus on what matters

Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!

Frequently asked questions

What do I get when I buy this document?

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.

Who am I buying this summary from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller legalwarrior1. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy this summary for R94,43. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

68175 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy summaries for 15 years now

Start selling
R94,43
  • (0)
Add to cart
Added