Tonite I'm gonna do a 10 minute lecturing interview in my college. Still bit nerveous, if by God's will I pray that I'll do fine and not stammer when I speak. Pls keep me in your prayer 6:30pm interview. Will keep you guys updated about the results.
Here's my speech :)
I’m going start with Statutory interpretation.
Before we go into the subject proper it is good to at least understand the nature and the importance of statutory interpretation in our law subject. As a law student you are required to learned and master this area for you to develop a decision making when facing with various statutes throughout the year.
Basically statutory interpretation connotes a guidelines or rule for the judge to follow in their decision making process. The Rigidity of such a rule is to ensure that the judges give a partial and just interpretation which reflects the intention of Parliament.
Their role of interpretation is crucial and thus it might be detriment to the litigation parties if there is no standard in the application of law. To ensure such certainty in law, judges is guided by the doctrine of statutory interpretation ie: Literal Rule; Golgen Rule; mischief rule or the purposive approach.
Literal Rule would mean that the judge read the statute in its literal,ordinary and natural meaning.
However, this rule of interpretation has been criticized as being too rigid and may caused undesirable result.
For eg: R. v. Harris 1836,
Harris bit someone's nose off; it was unlawful to "stab, cut or wound" (this is also an example of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, and indeed the two approaches are complimentary). This implied that some instrument must be used - this may be criticised as symptomatic of the irrelevance and absurdity of the law, but it is not wholly indefensible, since for the law to develop as a science, it is essential for it to follow logical rules.
"We no longer construe Acts according to their literal meaning. We construe them according to their object and intent." - Lord Denning
If a plain meaning is used, Haris will not be guilty of causing harm as there is no instrument involve.
Re Sigsworth 1935, S murdered his mother and tried to claim his inheritance. There is a rule that no-one should profit from their wrong, this overruled a clear statutory right of a son to inherit on intestacy. Hence statutes may be modified on grounds of public policy, as one was in this case (the principle was an existing common law principle that would have applied had she had died having made a will). Although this a clear breach of the rule that clear and unambiguous words cannot be ignored, it surely accorded with Parliament's wishes.
Due to all this problems, Parliament has allowed a degree of flexibity especially today with the involvement of the Human Rights Act 1997, judges can play a more proactive role in their decision making process and ensure that Justice is done.
- Criticism
Although many would criticize that Judges is seen to make law and it is against the doctrine of separation of powers.
Whatever said and done it must be noted that the role of a judge should be one who reason and ensure justice is done to innocent parties.Rigidity only leads to absurdity in the law. Judges also plays a part in the development of common law in the UK. As we can see today many statute has been amended due to the weakness in the wording and may not cover all situations even the best draftmen may not provide all eventualities.
Therefore, it requires a degree of flexibility to succumbed to the social, political and economical change in the society.
Amen!! Not Bad Not Bad!! Tengah mimpi nak jadi cikgu nie....hehehehe ;)
