Rules of Interpretation

Astatuteis a formal written personation of alegislativeauthority that governs astate,city, orcounty. Typically, statutes command or prohibit something, or hold policy. Statutory interpretationis the process by which courts interpret and applylegislation. Some amount of interpretation is endlessly necessary when a illustration involves astatute. Sometimes the sound outs of a statute have a plain and straightforward guessing. But in many cases, there is someambiguityor vaguenessin the interchanges of the statute that must be resolved by the judge.To find the meanings of statutes, judges use various(a) tools and methods of statutory interpretation, including formulas of interpretation. The five (5) main rules of statutory interpretation argon 1. The Context die hard When the context rule is use to interpret an act it is understood with reference to the backchats which are in immediate fraternity to it. This can be expressed by the Latin maximum noscitur a sociis which means a word may be known by the company it keeps when translated.The context rule is a more exact way of interpreting a statute because in each rule we tend to find out the meaning of a statute by learning about the context in which it was written. When a word stand alone it may have one specific definition however when one word is used in more than one context it may have a variety of diametrical meanings. When using the context rule one should consult the definition section of the statute and the Interpretation Act. 2.Interpretation in the Light of Policy ( The Fringe Meaning) Courts often announce that that they are trying to discover the intention of the legislature when interpreting statutes. If the courts find it difficult to decide whether a particular situation falls within a statute or not, the situation was probably unforeseen by the legislature. In this case the members of parliament would be just as confused as the judges. When statutes are constructed the maker of the do cument may not mean to include that which the court is concerned to ascertain, but they have said. . The Mischief Rule When the mischief rule is utilize the act or document is to be constructed to suppress mischief and advance the remedy. In applying the rule, the court is essentially asking what was the mischief that the previous law did not cover? The Mischief Rule is of narrower application than the chromatic ruleor the actualrule in the sense that it can only be used to interpret a statute and only when the statute was passed to remedy a defect in the everyday law.The way in which the mischief rule can produce more sensible out suffers than those that would result if the literal rule were applied is illustrated by the ruling inSmith v Hughes(1960). It was a crime for prostitutes to lounge about or solicit in the street for the purposes of prostitution. The defendants were calling to men in the street from balconies and tapping on windows. They claimed they were not guilty as they were not in the street. The judge applied the mischief rule to come to the conclusion that they were guilty as the intention of the Act was to cover the mischief of harassment from prostitutes. . The Literal Rule Literal rule states that if the run-in in an act are precise and unambiguous then they should be used in their natural and ordinary sense. The court can not extend the statute to a case outside of its terms bit with its purpose. Neither can it leave out the case that the statutes literally include thought it should not. If any doubt arises then the circumstances behind the enactment of the act are taken into consideration. Thus if the words are clear in themselves then they are to be swan into effect. 5.The Golden Rule In golden rule, the meaning of the words are modified in rewrite to avoid repugnance, inconsistency or absurdity. This rule applies in a few cases. In the first case the rule allows the court to prefer a sensible meaning, which would be the most obv ious, to an absurd one until now though both are possible. In another case this rule will only be used if the words are absolutely incapable of coinciding with the obvious intention of the statute. It is only where the words will avoid an unreasonable result that they must prevail.