Scribd
Upload
108 views4 pages

Statutory Interpretation Past Paper Questions

The document presents a series of past paper questions regarding statutory interpretation, focusing on various rules and approaches judges use to discern Parliament's intentions. It discusses the effectiveness of these approaches, including the mischief rule, literal rule, and the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on interpretation practices. The questions invite critical analysis of the evolving nature of statutory interpretation and the balance between judicial application of law and legislative supremacy.

Uploaded by

sseemal28121
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
108 views4 pages

Statutory Interpretation Past Paper Questions

The document presents a series of past paper questions regarding statutory interpretation, focusing on various rules and approaches judges use to discern Parliament's intentions. It discusses the effectiveness of these approaches, including the mischief rule, literal rule, and the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on interpretation practices. The questions invite critical analysis of the evolving nature of statutory interpretation and the balance between judicial application of law and legislative supremacy.

Uploaded by

sseemal28121
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION PAST PAPER QUESTIONS

‘When seeking the “mischief” an Act of Parliament is aimed at, the judge

must focus on fulfilling Parliament’s intentions.’

Explain the so-called “mischief rule” and discuss whether this rule and

other approaches to statutory interpretation can be said to achieve

Parliament’s intentions.

‘Courts should simply apply the ordinary English meaning of words when

interpreting statutes. A judge’s job is to apply the law and not to make it.’

Explain why, from time to time, the courts have taken different

approaches to statutory interpretation and discuss whether judges can

simply apply the law.

‘Statutory interpretation is an exercise in discovering the intention of

Parliament and judges have used a number of approaches to discern

this. Sadly none has been successful.’

Explain the approaches that judges have used to interpret statutes and

discuss whether any of them have been effective in determining the

intention of Parliament.

‘There are a number of approaches used by the courts in statutory

interpretation but none of them are rules and none of them are much

use.’

Explain the different approaches that the courts have used in interpreting

statutes and discuss whether any of them result in legally desirable

outcomes.

‘Judges should apply the law and not concern themselves with
interpreting statutes. The plain meaning is always the best meaning.’

Discuss.

‘The mischief rule requires judges to interpret statutes to “suppress the

mischief… according to the true intent” of Parliament. Faced with such

an impossible task, it is no surprise that judges no longer use the

mischief rule.’

Discuss

‘The interpretation of statutes is not really that difficult, but it has become

more unpredictable since the Human Rights Act 1998.’

Discuss.

‘Since the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force, statutory

interpretation is no longer restricted to identifying the mischief. Instead,

words are stretched beyond any meaning they could possibly have.’

Discuss.

‘Statutory interpretation requires the courts to ascertain the meaning of

the words in a statute in the light of their context and purpose.’

Discuss.

‘The court’s duty, in accordance with ordinary principles of statutory

interpretation, is to favour an interpretation of legislation which gives

effect to its purpose rather than defeating it.’

Discuss.

‘Those who favour the literal rule assume an unattainable perfection in

the drafting of statutes and ignore the limitations of language.’


Discuss.

‘The Mischief rule emerged when statutes were a gloss on the common

law. The rule made sense in the 16th century but it makes little sense in

the 21st century.’

Discuss.

‘One must construe a word or phrase in a section of an Act of Parliament

with all the assistance one can… but having obtained all that assistance,

one must not at the end of the day distort that which has to be construed

and give it a meaning which in its context one would not think it can

possibly bear.’ (Stamp J in Bourne v Norwich Crematorium Ltd (1967).)

Discuss the extent to which Stamp J’s view is still true of statutory

interpretation today.

‘The interpretation of statutes is a craft as much as a science and judges,

as skilled workers, select and apply the appropriate rules as the tools of

their trade.’

Discuss.

‘The advantages of the literal rule are that it restricts judges to applying

the law and recognises that only Parliament makes law.’

Discuss.

‘The real reason that judicial approaches to statutory interpretation have

changed over the centuries is because the judges have, at different

times, had more respect for the legislative supremacy of Parliament.’

Discuss.
‘Judges have rarely considered the legislative supremacy of Parliament

when interpreting statutes. Judicial approaches to statutory

interpretation have changed over the centuries but why that is so

remains a mystery.’

Discuss.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy