Interpretation of Laws in the United Kingdom Essay

Interpretation of Laws in the United Kingdom - Essay ExampleThis paper declares that the literal retrieve demands that the judiciary should utilization the ordinary meaning of a statute by merely reading the text irrespective of the outcomes. The territorial dominion is based on the assumption that the objective of sevens is well captured in the plain and natural sense of the choice of words is uses in drafting a statute.As the report stresses the case of Fisher v Bell magnifies the superiority of the literal rule. The courts decision was inspired by the literal meaning of The Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959, which outlawed the oblation for barter of select offensive weapons such as flick knives. James Bell created a display of such unlawful weapons in his shop, prompting his have and charges. In its decision, the Divisional Court absolved him of any offense as per the literal meaning of the statute, arguing that the mere display of the knives by the defendant did n on amount to an offer for sale. The plain meaning of the contract law stipulates that displaying something at a point of sale should non be misconstrued to mean an offer for sale rather it is just a mere invitation of potential customers to learn more about the item and tender their offers. The literal rule has merits and demerits. It limits litigations, promotes clear drafting of legislations and enhances easier recital of laws by laymen provided they can understand the language used. Nonetheless, the literal rule may lead to interpretation of legislations out of context and narrowing of the parameters of a law. The gilded rule Greeawalt (2012) has pointed out that the golden rule requires judicial members to give life to the literal rule so as to achieve a better interpretation of the law. The rule states that in the event that the literal rule fails to yield a proper meaning of a law, it is rational to explore another sense in the words. manufacturer Wensleydale in the case o f Grey v Pearson (1857) HL Cas 61 is credited with creating a precedent when he stated that the literal meaning of an Act should be read and construed as it is, but if by doing so, a judicial officer would face an absurdity, then the person should modify the literal value of the text (Wagner, Werner, and Cao, 2007). The golden rule was invoked in the case of Adler v George (1964) to prevent an absurdity in court. The Official Secrets Act 1920 3, outlaws any distraction to the HM Forces around a forbid base. Frank Adlers violated the law and was charged with causing distraction to the officers. In his defence, Adler argued that he was actually inside a prohibited place and not in its vicinity.