Product Description

• A comprehensive text which matches the OCR AS Level Law specification exactly.
• A range of interesting activities which allows students to apply and develop ideas from the preceding text.
• End of unit Case Study examines issues raised in the unit as a whole.
• An exciting format printed in two colours with pictures and diagrams.
• Visual stimuli help students to remember important cases.
  

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #520860 in Books
• Published on: 2004-07-27
• Original language: English
• Binding: Hardcover
• 224 pages

From the Publisher
This book has been tailored to meet the exact requirements of the OCR AS Law specification.

About the Author
Simon Jackson teaches A Level Law at Yale College, Wrexham.

Excerpted from Ocr Law in Focus As Level (OCR LAW IN FOCUS) by Simon Jackson. Copyright © 2003. Reprinted by permission. All rights reserved.
10.1 Introduction

The law only exists as words. It is only possible to give effect to the law by interpreting those words and applying them to a particular set of facts. This is what lawyers and, in particular, judges, are paid to do. This unit examines the various rules that the courts have developed to assist in the process of interpreting and applying Acts of Parliament (Acts of Parliament are also known as statutes or legislation).

Activity 10.1 Why are rules of statutory interpretation necessary?

SET ROUND PHOTO OF OLD CAR POLLUTING THE AIR

The government of Noland (a fictional place) was deeply concerned about pollution, accidents and noise caused by traffic in its small and over-crowded country. As car ownership and use grew, the Prime Minister decided she would have to take drastic steps. Her advisors said that much of the problem stemmed from the engines in older, fuel inefficient and poorly maintained cars. It was decided to pass an Act of Parliament removing these old cars from the road. Because the government was so anxious to tackle the problems, it rushed legislation through Parliament in half the normal time. Section 1 of the No Old Cars Please Act 2002 reads:

'It shall be an offence to use any motor vehicle made before 1 January 1991 on public roads.'

This law was very unpopular, particularly with those who owned older vehicles. Harry Sharp identified a possible solution for these people however. Aware that the engine of a car is the most expensive part he set up a business making very basic, low-cost, kit cars that are sold without engines. The purchaser assembles the car and is able to install a wide range of engines from old cars. Those customers who used Harry's kit cars with engines made before 1991, and Harry himself, were prosecuted under Section 1 of the No Old Cars Please Act 2002. The defendants pleaded not guilty, arguing purely on a point of law. They argued that, on the basis of the words used in the Act, they had not broken the law.

(a) Will the courts have a straightforward job when interpreting the wording of this statute?

(b) What arguments would you put (i) for the prosecution and (ii) for the defence in this case?

(c) Carefully draft an improved version of Section 1 of the No Old Cars Please Act 2002, using different wording, which achieves the government's aim.

You will have realised that the language in which the law was written in Activity 10.1 was capable of distortion. It was given a meaning not envisaged by the government. In the real Parliament, Parliamentary Counsel, who are specialised barristers, choose the words used in a Bill. They create a draft of the Act. In Parliament, these words are examined carefully and may be altered before the Bill becomes an Act, but it is often difficult to find exactly the right words.

Although the fictional scenario in Activity 10.1 is far-fetched it suggests the kind of problems with words that occasionally confront the courts in the real world when they have to interpret statutes.

Some problems of statutory interpretation include:
Some words are ambiguous, they are capable of more than one meaning, and the courts are not sure which meaning to use
Defendants find ways of evading the law which were not predicted and, therefore, not covered by the words used
A word is insufficiently imprecise. For example, does the term 'motor vehicle' in Activity 10.1 include motorised wheel chairs and electric-powered cars?
Simple error in the drafting phase, which goes unnoticed
The meaning of words may change over time. For example, in Section 28 of the Town Police Causes Act 1847 the word 'passenger' meant a traveller on foot, which is certainly not the meaning it is given in modern English.

10.2 The three basic rules of interpretation

The three rules defined
There are three basic rules of interpretation. These can be defined as follows.

1. The literal rule
This is a simple rule. Words should be given their ordinary meaning, regardless of whether that is necessarily the one that might be expected. The reason behind this rule is that it would be wrong for the courts to guess what Parliament actually meant when the Act was passed. Lord Esher stated in R v Judge of the City of London Court (1892): 'If the words of an Act are clear, you must follow them, even though they lead to a manifest [obvious] absurdity. The court has nothing to do with the question of whether the legislature has committed an absurdity'.

An example of the Literal rule is shown in Box 10.1.

Customer Reviews

Highly recommended
As an A-Level Law teacher for OCR, I have encouraged my students to use this book for several reasons. First, it is specific to the OCR examination board hence all the material is relevant. Further, it emphasises the analysis which is becoming an increasingly vital skill in the OCR AS papers and which students often found the most challenging.

Excellent for OCR AS Law!
I found this v. helpful for my exams in january, ended up getting full marks in mods 1 and 2! Highly recommended, best as law book around!

Very useful!!
I found this book incredible for my AS Law (OCR) exams which I just sat in january. It had the same level of detail as Jacqueline Martin's English Legal System, but only on those topics which were relevant. Easy to understand, but not too dumbed-down!