legal studies unit 4 aos 1 part b

statutory interpretation

the process by which courts interpret and apply legislation

doctrine of precedent

the rule that the reasons for the decisions of higher courts are binding on courts ranked lower in the same hierarchy in cases where the material facts are similar

methods judges use to interpret statutes

looking at past decisions, looking at intrinsic materials, extrinsic materials

instrinsic materials

things found within the act

extrinsic materials

sources outside the act, such as parliamentary debates, reports from committees etc

what happens once a common law has been established

it doesn’t change the actual wording of the legislation, but changes the meaning and application of those words and becomes a part of the law and will be read along with the statute in future cases

reasons why a court will interpret legislation

resolve problems that occured in the drafting process
resolve problems that occur when a corut is applying the acts of parliament

problems from the drafting process

• technical errors

• may not have taken future circumstances into account

• the intention of the act not clearly expressed

• the same word used inconsistently in different parts of the act

problems applying the act to a court case

• the legislation is drafted in general terms and needs to be interpreted to be applied to the specific circumstances

• the act is out of date

• the meaning of the words may be ambiguous

• the act might be silent on an issue so that the courts need to fill n the gaps in the legislation

• the meaning of words can change over time

effects of statutory interpretation

words or phrases in the act are given meaning

the decision is binding on the parties to the case

precedent is created for future cases to follow

the meaning of the legislation may have been narrowed or broadened, which affects the scope of the law

the court’s decision in relation to a statute applies to the parties in the dispute and future cases, unless it is reversed or overruled by a higher court or aborgated by parliament

how common law is established

when there is no existing law → the judge will be required to make a decision on a new issue and subsequently develop common law

when existing statute needs interpreting → this requires the courts to interpret the meaning of words or phrases in a statute so that it can be applied to the matter at hand

precedent

the legal reasoning behind a court’s decision. it establishes a legal rule that must be followed by lower courts in the same hierarchy in future cases that are similar

reasons for precedent

ensures consistency and predictability as parties can anticipate how courts will apply the law

like cases are decided in a like manner

legal rep are able to give advice on the likely outcome of a case

judges have some guidance

decisions made by more experienced judges in higher courts are followed in lower courts

the same point of law is not being decided over and over again

binding precedent

superior court decisions are binding on lower courtrs in the same court hierarchy, but they must have similar material facts

the higher court’s decision remains law until it is overruled by a higher court or the law is altered by an act of parliament

ratio decidendi

the reason for the decision

stare decisis

to stand by what has been decided

persuasive precedents

precedents from another hierarchy, or a court of the same/lower standing in the same court hierarchy

can be considered by a judge and used to influence and guide their decision but is not binding

obiter dictum

a statement made by the judge that is not directly relevant to the point of law in question, but can have a persuasive influence on future cases

how persuasive precedents are developed/avoided

adopt or affirm

avoid

RODD factors

reversing a precedent

distinguishing from the material facts

overruling a precedent

disapproving a precedent

applying earlier precedents

courts will sometimes be required to interpret the meaning of the words and prhases used in the past precedents

juries and precedents

juries cannot create precedents because they do not decide on points of law and they do not give reasons for their decisions, and precedents are the legal reasoning behind a court decision

factors that affect the ability of courts to make law

the doctrine of precedent

judicial conservatism and judicial activism

cost and time in bringing a case to court

the requirement for standing