Evaluate Predictability The literal rule provides predictability within courts. What definiton is used? Does this change law? Who can predict? Rule of Law? How was literal rule used in Harris? Could this be predicted? Harris Apart of Literal Rule Evaluation - Advantage

Dictionary Definition, no law is changed, lawyer and citizens can predict outcome, this follows the rule of law. Judge used it for stab, cut and wound, Defendant would be able to predict the courts did this, and as such will know that he won't be convicted due to it.

Evaluate Respects Parliamentary Supremacy The literal rule, respects Parliamentary Supremacy What do judges do in their role for literal rule? What does this respect? How did P supremacy get respected in Whiteley v Chappel? Whiteley v Chappel Apart of Literal Rule Evaluation - Advantage

Only apply and interpret the law, without changing it in any way, which ends up respecting the supremacy of Parliament. Judge used the law when it came to entitlement of using other peoples voting card, and didn't change the law at all respecting P supremacy.

Evaluate Punish Parliament Literal Rule punishes Parliament for bad legislation. What can't judge change in this rule? What does this highlight? How did LNER v Berriman highlight problem in the act? LNER v Berriman Apart of Literal Rule Evaluation - Advantage

Can't change meaning of word in order to avoid an absurd outcome, highlight the problems that are currently in the law and urges Parliament to reform the law. Judge couldn't change meaning of relaying or repairing tracks to give compensation, highlighted problem in the law.

Evaluate Respects Role Judges under literal rule respect their constiutional role. What can they only do? What do they use? Who is left with law-making? How did judges respect their role in LNER v Berriman? LNER V Berriman Apart of Literal Rule Evaluation - Advantage

Apply and interpret law, can't change the law at all, and use a dictionary from the year of the act, leaving law making to Parliament. Respected role as didn't change definition of relaying or repairing tracks to include oiling, leaves law making to Parliament.

Evaluate Absurd/Unjust Literal rule leads to absurd and unjust results. What do judges only apply? What can a word be? How was ruling in Harris absurd? Harris Apart of Literal Rule Evaluation - Disadvantage

Natural dictionary meaning of the word, even if it leads to an absurdity, and even if the word has a outdated meaning. Biting was not in stab/cut/wound, as a result conviction was quashed, absurd as V had their nose bit off, unjust.

Evaluate Perfection in Draftsperson The literal rule expects an unattainable perfection in the draftsperson. What can humans make? Can judge change if error? How could a draftsperson make a mistake for law in LNER v Berriman LNER v Berriman Apart of Literal Rule Evaluation - Disadvantage

Humans are not pefect and can make a mistake, in this case a mistake when phrasing or drafting the law correctly, even if the person makes an error, judges can't change this. Might have mistakenly forgot to include oiling in relaying or repairing of the tracks, a judge can't change this.

Evaluate 1+ Meaning Problem The literal rule results in problems created if a word has more than one meaning. What is it hard to know if more than one dictionary meaning? What could a judge do by accident? [NEWCASE] In Eagle v Cutter Star Insurance, what had two meaning? [ROAD] What did judge have to work out in Road Traffic Act? Eagle v Cutter Star Insurance Apart of Literal Rule Evaluation - Disadvantage

Hard to determine the intention of parliament with this, so a judge might apply the wrong meaning that P didn't intend by accident Road had two meanings, judge had to work out the correct meaning, could have applied it wrong.

Evaluate No Adapt Under the literal rule, the law can't adapt to modern changes in society. What dictionary do judges use? What does this make the meaning? Can it adapt? What circumstances in Whiteley v Chappel did not allow in meaning a new circumstance? Whiteley v Chappel Apart of Literal Rule Evaluation - Disadvantage

A dictionary from the year the act was created in, makes the meanings used for words outdates and can't adapt to a modern society, due to the old definitons being used. Meaning of entitlement to vote, did not allow new circumstances to be considered of using a dead persons voting card

Evaluate Prevent Absurd The golden rule prevents absurd or unjust results What does Michael Zander state? What is it only used if? Provides? How was an absurdity avoided in Re Sigsworth Re Sigsworth Apart of Golden Rule Evaluation - Advantage

Golden Rule is a important safety net, only used if LR leads to an absurdity, which is fair. D under LR would have inherited the estate as he was kin, but he killed to get the estate from his mother, GR allowed a modification to avoid D getting the estate stopping an absurdity.

Evaluate Respect P Supremacy The GR respects Parliamentary Supremacy What is not done in Narrow Approach? What is done instead? How is this shown in R v Allen R v Allen Apart of Golden Rule Evaluation - Advantage

Not making law, only chosing between existing meaning that can apply, this doesn't change the act at all. Judges only used other meaning of marry to avoid an absurdity, they didn't change anything in the act.

Evaluate Save Time The GR saves Parliament time. What do judges change? What isn't changed from this? What does this close? What in this case would happen in LR? How did judge reform Official Secrets Act without Parliament? Adler v George Apart of Golden Rule Evaluation - Advantage

Meaning of the word in the act in order to give a fair outcome, the law in itself isn't changed only the meaning of the word, this closes the gaps in the law. D would escape liability, as they were inside, which is a loophole and absurdity, judge changed meaning reforming Official Secrets Act so Parliament didn't have to spend time to change the entire act.

Evaluate Narrow with Rule of Law The Narrow Approach respects the rule of law. What do judge decide correct definiton based on? Is this easy to predict? What does it maintain? How was R v Allen changed in GR? Was this predictable? R v Allen Apart of Golden Rule Evaluation - Advantage

Due to any ambiguity, they base it of the msot clear and less absurd definition, this is easy for lawyers to predict and the law maintains a degree of certainty. Marry had two meanings, courts used meaning to go through a marriage ceremony, for justice, this is one of two outcomes so a lawyer could easilt predict this, which follows the rule of law.

Evaluate Lack of Clarification There is a lack of clarification when it comes to the term absurdity. When is GR only used in? What isn't clarified? What does this lead to? How does this go against rule of law? How can this be unfair? Apart of Golden Rule Evaluation - Dis-advantage

If LR leads to absurdity, but absurdity is not clarified, therefore there will be different outcomes for the same case under different judges due to this. Uncertain and Unpredictable doesn't follow ROL, unfair as case can have a different outcome depending on if the judge hears it thinks so, due to the interpretation on what a absurdity is considered as.

Evaluate No P Supremacy The GR doesn't respect Parliamentary Supremacy. What is changed in Wider Approach? What is this not for the judges? What should it be left to? How did Judges go against constitutional role in act? Adler v George Apart of Golden Rule Evaluation - Dis-advantage

Meaning of a word or phrase is changed or modified, a judge role is to apply law, not to modify it, modification should be left to Parliament as they are supreme law making body. Did not respect P supremacy, as changed meaning of vicinity, this was something Parliament should have changed and wasn't in the judges constitutional role.

Evaluate Unpredictable Safety Valve Zander states GR is a unpredictable safety value. What term did he describe GR as? How is a judge limited on what they can do? Can this always ensure justice? What could Parliament might not have intended with either meaning? Can judge change the law itself? What can they only change? Apart of Golden Rule Evaluation - Dis-advantage

Feeable safety valve, limited on what can do, only change or modify meaning, so can't always fulfil P intention or bring about justice. Either meaning might not even be their intention for the act, judge can't change the law itself, and can only use the least absurd meaning in this scenario, not effective

Statutory Instruments - Evaluation Flashcards by Talhah Akram

Evaluate

Predictability

The literal rule provides predictability within courts.
What definiton is used? Does this change law? Who can predict? Rule of Law?
How was literal rule used in Harris? Could this be predicted?

Harris

Apart of Literal Rule Evaluation - Advantage

Dictionary Definition, no law is changed, lawyer and citizens can predict outcome, this follows the rule of law.
Judge used it for stab, cut and wound, Defendant would be able to predict the courts did this, and as such will know that he won’t be convicted due to it.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Evaluate

Respects Parliamentary Supremacy

The literal rule, respects Parliamentary Supremacy
What do judges do in their role for literal rule? What does this respect?
How did P supremacy get respected in Whiteley v Chappel?

Whiteley v Chappel

Apart of Literal Rule Evaluation - Advantage

Only apply and interpret the law, without changing it in any way, which ends up respecting the supremacy of Parliament.
Judge used the law when it came to entitlement of using other peoples voting card, and didn’t change the law at all respecting P supremacy.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Evaluate

Punish Parliament

Literal Rule punishes Parliament for bad legislation.
What can’t judge change in this rule? What does this highlight?
How did LNER v Berriman highlight problem in the act?

LNER v Berriman

Apart of Literal Rule Evaluation - Advantage

Can’t change meaning of word in order to avoid an absurd outcome, highlight the problems that are currently in the law and urges Parliament to reform the law.
Judge couldn’t change meaning of relaying or repairing tracks to give compensation, highlighted problem in the law.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Evaluate

Respects Role

Judges under literal rule respect their constiutional role.
What can they only do? What do they use? Who is left with law-making?
How did judges respect their role in LNER v Berriman?

LNER V Berriman

Apart of Literal Rule Evaluation - Advantage

Apply and interpret law, can’t change the law at all, and use a dictionary from the year of the act, leaving law making to Parliament.
Respected role as didn’t change definition of relaying or repairing tracks to include oiling, leaves law making to Parliament.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Evaluate

Absurd/Unjust

Literal rule leads to absurd and unjust results.
What do judges only apply? What can a word be?
How was ruling in Harris absurd?

Harris

Apart of Literal Rule Evaluation - Disadvantage

Natural dictionary meaning of the word, even if it leads to an absurdity, and even if the word has a outdated meaning.
Biting was not in stab/cut/wound, as a result conviction was quashed, absurd as V had their nose bit off, unjust.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Evaluate

Perfection in Draftsperson

The literal rule expects an unattainable perfection in the draftsperson.
What can humans make? Can judge change if error?
How could a draftsperson make a mistake for law in LNER v Berriman

LNER v Berriman

Apart of Literal Rule Evaluation - Disadvantage

Humans are not pefect and can make a mistake, in this case a mistake when phrasing or drafting the law correctly, even if the person makes an error, judges can’t change this.
Might have mistakenly forgot to include oiling in relaying or repairing of the tracks, a judge can’t change this.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Evaluate

1+ Meaning Problem

The literal rule results in problems created if a word has more than one meaning.
What is it hard to know if more than one dictionary meaning? What could a judge do by accident?
[NEWCASE] In Eagle v Cutter Star Insurance, what had two meaning? [ROAD] What did judge have to work out in Road Traffic Act?

Eagle v Cutter Star Insurance

Apart of Literal Rule Evaluation - Disadvantage

Hard to determine the intention of parliament with this, so a judge might apply the wrong meaning that P didn’t intend by accident
Road had two meanings, judge had to work out the correct meaning, could have applied it wrong.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Evaluate

No Adapt

Under the literal rule, the law can’t adapt to modern changes in society.
What dictionary do judges use? What does this make the meaning? Can it adapt?
What circumstances in Whiteley v Chappel did not allow in meaning a new circumstance?

Whiteley v Chappel

Apart of Literal Rule Evaluation - Disadvantage

A dictionary from the year the act was created in, makes the meanings used for words outdates and can’t adapt to a modern society, due to the old definitons being used.
Meaning of entitlement to vote, did not allow new circumstances to be considered of using a dead persons voting card

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Evaluate

Prevent Absurd

The golden rule prevents absurd or unjust results
What does Michael Zander state? What is it only used if? Provides?
How was an absurdity avoided in Re Sigsworth

Re Sigsworth

Apart of Golden Rule Evaluation - Advantage

Golden Rule is a important safety net, only used if LR leads to an absurdity, which is fair.
D under LR would have inherited the estate as he was kin, but he killed to get the estate from his mother, GR allowed a modification to avoid D getting the estate stopping an absurdity.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Evaluate

Respect P Supremacy

The GR respects Parliamentary Supremacy
What is not done in Narrow Approach? What is done instead?
How is this shown in R v Allen

R v Allen

Apart of Golden Rule Evaluation - Advantage

Not making law, only chosing between existing meaning that can apply, this doesn’t change the act at all.
Judges only used other meaning of marry to avoid an absurdity, they didn’t change anything in the act.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Evaluate

Save Time

The GR saves Parliament time.
What do judges change? What isn’t changed from this? What does this close?
What in this case would happen in LR? How did judge reform Official Secrets Act without Parliament?

Adler v George

Apart of Golden Rule Evaluation - Advantage

Meaning of the word in the act in order to give a fair outcome, the law in itself isn’t changed only the meaning of the word, this closes the gaps in the law.
D would escape liability, as they were inside, which is a loophole and absurdity, judge changed meaning reforming Official Secrets Act so Parliament didn’t have to spend time to change the entire act.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Evaluate

Narrow with Rule of Law

The Narrow Approach respects the rule of law.
What do judge decide correct definiton based on? Is this easy to predict? What does it maintain?
How was R v Allen changed in GR? Was this predictable?

R v Allen

Apart of Golden Rule Evaluation - Advantage

Due to any ambiguity, they base it of the msot clear and less absurd definition, this is easy for lawyers to predict and the law maintains a degree of certainty.
Marry had two meanings, courts used meaning to go through a marriage ceremony, for justice, this is one of two outcomes so a lawyer could easilt predict this, which follows the rule of law.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Evaluate

Lack of Clarification

There is a lack of clarification when it comes to the term absurdity.
When is GR only used in? What isn’t clarified? What does this lead to?
How does this go against rule of law? How can this be unfair?

Apart of Golden Rule Evaluation - Dis-advantage

If LR leads to absurdity, but absurdity is not clarified, therefore there will be different outcomes for the same case under different judges due to this.
Uncertain and Unpredictable doesn’t follow ROL, unfair as case can have a different outcome depending on if the judge hears it thinks so, due to the interpretation on what a absurdity is considered as.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Evaluate

No P Supremacy

The GR doesn’t respect Parliamentary Supremacy.
What is changed in Wider Approach? What is this not for the judges? What should it be left to?
How did Judges go against constitutional role in act?

Adler v George

Apart of Golden Rule Evaluation - Dis-advantage

Meaning of a word or phrase is changed or modified, a judge role is to apply law, not to modify it, modification should be left to Parliament as they are supreme law making body.
Did not respect P supremacy, as changed meaning of vicinity, this was something Parliament should have changed and wasn’t in the judges constitutional role.

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Evaluate

Unpredictable Safety Valve

Zander states GR is a unpredictable safety value.
What term did he describe GR as? How is a judge limited on what they can do? Can this always ensure justice?
What could Parliament might not have intended with either meaning? Can judge change the law itself? What can they only change?

Apart of Golden Rule Evaluation - Dis-advantage

Feeable safety valve, limited on what can do, only change or modify meaning, so can’t always fulfil P intention or bring about justice.
Either meaning might not even be their intention for the act, judge can’t change the law itself, and can only use the least absurd meaning in this scenario, not effective

How well did you know this?

Not at all

Perfectly

Evaluate

Uncertainty in WA

The Wider Approach can lead to uncertainty in the law.
Predictable? Why? Leads to? Doesn’t uphold?
Was Re Sigsworth predictable? Why?

Re Sigsworth

Apart of Golden Rule Evaluation - Dis-advantage

Study These Flashcards

Not possible to always predict the outcome or when WA is used, so lawyers have trouble advising clients as there is less certainty, therefore the rule of law isn’t followed.
Not possible for lawyers to predict, the meaning of Kin isn’t absurd in itself, so a lawyer wouldn’t be able to predict the courts would have a problem with this.

Evaluate

Prevent Absurd

The MR prevents absurd and unjust results.
What do judges not have to do in this rule? How can they change law? How do they interpret it? Is this fair and just?
How did MR prevent absurdity in Smith v Hughes?

Smith v Hughes

Apart of Mischief Rule Evaluation - Advantage

Study These Flashcards

Judge don’t have to give word, literal or absurd meaning, change law to fit circumstances and interpret law in P’s intention, fair and just.
Absurdity prevented as meaning of law was changed to stop prostitutes getting away from a clear crime, which is what P would intend.

Evaluate

Flexibility

The MR provides flexibility in interpretation.
What do judges change meaning of words or phrases in order to do? What does this also do as a result? How can the law change for modern issues? Justice?
How did RCN v DHSS use flexibility to match modern times?

Royal College of Nurses v DHSS

Apart of Mischief Rule Evaluation - Advantage

Study These Flashcards

To match the intentions of parliament, whilst also adapting the law to modern situations, allowing law to change in time with technology, justice.
Law adapted to social change, as medical practicioner was changed to include Nurses, as with developments in medicine, it made since for them to be able to perform abortions.

Evaluate

P Intention

The MR puts into practice the intention of Parliaments.
What do judges consider when changing the law?
How did the judges follow Parliaments intention in this case?

DPP v Bull

Apart of Mischief Rule Evaluation - Advantage

Study These Flashcards

Judge look at intention when correcting the mischief, which respects P wishes and intentions.
Interpretated law to match P intention to only punish female prostitutes and not male.

Evaluate

Alternate + Narrow

The MR is a alternative to the golden and literal rule, but narrower than the purposive approach, which respects P supremacy.
What do judge consider when changing meaning? How does this respect supremacy?
How was P supremacy uphold in Smith v Hughes?

Smith v Hughes

Apart of Mischief Rule Evaluation - Advantage

Study These Flashcards

Interpret the law or words or phrases with the intentions of parliament at mind, to achieve the corrected intention that Parliament would have for the act., Law changed to P’s wishes, still making Parliament the supreme law making body.
Courts interpretated Street Offences Act, in line with P’s intention as they wanted to stop prostitution in public areas.

Evaluate

No Certainty

The MR doesn’t provide certainty within the law.
What do judges consider when changing the meaning? Is it possible to predict when rule is used? What can lawyers and citizens not do?
How did judge change law that was impossible to predict?

RCN v DHSS

Apart of Mischief Rule Evaluation - Disadvantage

Study These Flashcards

Change meaning to match P intention, but impossible to predict when used, and how the judge will change it, lawyers and citizens can’t predict the outcome.
Judge changed law including nurse in medical practicioner, but a lawyer could not predict if the courts would have used the rule beforehand, so couldn’t advise D properly.

Evaluate

No Supremacy

The MR doesn’t uphold Parliamentary Spremacy.
How do judges use their own interpretation in this rule? How does this differ between judges?
How can this be shown in RCN v DHSS?

RCN v DHSS

Apart of Mischief Rule Evaluation - Disadvantage

Study These Flashcards

When change meaning to P intention, they use their own belief as to what P intention was, this could maybe not be the actual intention, but this differs judge from judge, with their different morals and beliefs on what P intended.
Judge changed law to have Nurse in Medical Practicioner defintion, but Parliament may not have intended for a Nurse to perform an abortion.

Evaluate

Inconsistency

The MR allows inconsistency between judicial deciscion.
How do judges use their own interpretation in this rule? How do judges differ in same cases?
How is this shown in DPP v Bull?

DPP v Bull

Apart of Mischief Rule Evaluation - Disadvantage

Study These Flashcards

Interpret law in line with intention that they believe, individual judges differ on the intention they believe, even on the same case there can be a different deciscion which is unfair.
Judge decided Street offences Act only applied to female prostitutes, could be based of their own individual bias, a different judge may have a different view.

Evaluate

Fails to Help

The MR sometimes fails to helo judges interpret an act of parliament.
When is the rule still used for? What do old acts have less of? What does this waste?
How is this shown on Corkery v Carpenter?

Corkery v Carpenter

Apart of Mischief Rule Evaluation - Disadvantage

Study These Flashcards

Even when the mischief is really old and can’t easily be detected, old acts have less extrensic aids available, wastes courts time and adds to increased costs for the parties due to delays, which is unfair.
Act in case was from 1872, judge didn’t have much intrinsic aid to help determine the intention of Parliament when it came to passing act.

# Evaluate P Intention * PA gives effect to P's true intention. * What is investigated in this approach? Comapre this to other rules? * How did judges ensure P intention in this case? | Coltman v Bibby Tankers ## Footnote Apart of Purposive Approach Evaluation - Advantage

* What P intended when creating the law, and ensures this is fulfilled in the case, whereas other rules sometimes ignore Parliament's intention like LR. * P intention was to protect employees and judges ensured this by classing ship as equipment.

# Evaluate Prevent Absurd * The PA prevents absurd and unjust results. * What do judges change law to do? Why is this fair? * How was absurd deciscion avoided in this case? | R v Registrar ## Footnote Apart of Purposive Approach Evaluation - Advantage

* To avoid an absurdity, this is fair and prmotes justice unlike the other rules. * Absurd to allow dangerous man to find mothers identity, as her life is under risk if that happens, PA prevents this whilst LR would allow this.

# Evaluate Up to Date * The PA ensures law keeps up to date with modern society. * Why do judges change meaning? This also leads to? Flexible so justice can? * How was the law in this changed to be up to date? | R (Quintavalle) ## Footnote Apart of Purposive Approach Evaluation - Advantage

* Judge change meaning to match Parliament's intentions, and adapt to modern society and technology, makes law flexible, and adaps to time for justice to be achieved. * P would have to make new act to cover new way of making embryo, this approach allows the judge to adapt the current law to fit in with modern developments in technology.

# Evaluate More Flexible * PA more flexible than the mischief rule. * What are you not required to do in PA unlike MR? What does this provide? * In this case, how couldn't MR be used leading to the use of PA? | R v Registrar ## Footnote Apart of Purposive Approach Evaluation - Advantage

* To identify a mischief with the old law the act tried to remedy, greater flexibility and opportunity to adapt law if it is necessary. * Adoption Act not passed to recitfy mischief, MR couldn't be used, however PA could be used, to keep mother safe preventing danger.

# Evaluate No Certainty * The PA doesn't provide certainty within the law. * What do judge change law to match? Is this the same for every case? Predictable? Rule of Law? * How was this case impossible for lawyers to predict? | R(Quintavalle) ## Footnote Apart of Purposive Approach Evaluation - Disadvantage

* To match the intention of P, but this isn't done on every case, a lawyer is not able to easily predict when approach is uses, eroding the rule of law. * Lawyer couldn't predict the judge would interpret the act in regards to CNR Embryos.

# Evaluate No Supremacy * The PA doesn't protect Parliamentary Supremacy. * How do judges go against role? Why is this not respecting? * Why was P supremacy not respected in this case? | Coltman v Bibby Tankers ## Footnote Apart of Purposive Approach Evaluation - Disadvantage

* Judges are changing meanings and modifying law, but role is to interpret and apply the law, P should have created those rules, as P is the supreme law making body. * Judges changed act to class ship as equipment, whereas this is something P should have done themselves and not the judge.

# Evaluate Relies on Extrensic Aid * The PA relies heavily on the use of extrensic aids. * Why do they need to rely on it? What tool do they use in particular? What do some argue this causes? * How does it slow down a case? What does this increase for parties? ## Footnote Apart of Purposive Approach Evaluation - Disadvantage

* Difficult to discover intention, use Hansard, which is a recording of past debates when law was passed, and what opposing MP's said, some argue it erodes impartiality. * Use of Hansard slows down time to decide a case, increased delays, means more cost for both parties which is unfair for them.

# Evaluate Inconsistent Use * The PA is used inconsistently which is unfair. * What does it depend on heavily? Why do some judges not use it? What does Lord Scarman think on the constituional role? * How does this case show an incosistent use? | Bulmer v Bollinger ## Footnote Apart of Purposive Approach Evaluation - Disadvantage

* On the judge deciding case, some don't use it as not their constituional role, Lord Scarman, believes judge has duty to not change law to how they think it should be, but to instead interpret law and apply it as is. * More modern judges like Lord Denning, believe its their role to fill in the gaps for loopholes or mistakes, so outcome of this case determined on the judge hearing it.

Statutory Instruments - Evaluation Flashcards

(32 cards)