CRIM 135 Lecture 4: Legal Interpretation

CRIM 135 Lecture 4 Legal Interpretation - In really complicated cases, judges cannot just look at what the law says - Have to think about the economic impact, beliefs, etc. - Why we need Legal Interpretation - **Common Law** tradition - Law IS NOT always CLEAR - Words/ terms c...

CRIM 135 Lecture 4 Legal Interpretation - In really complicated cases, judges cannot just look at what the law says - Have to think about the economic impact, beliefs, etc. - Why we need Legal Interpretation - **Common Law** tradition - Law IS NOT always CLEAR - Words/ terms can be AMBIGUOUS - Sometimes statutes have definitions, sometimes not - "Spouse", "cruel and unusual punishment" (*R v Lloyd* versus *R v Luxton* cases) - LEGAL CONSTRUCTION: Judges engage in interpretation of law where law is not clear - **Judicial Discretion** - THERE ARE MULTIPLE PLAUSIBLE OUTCOMES TO A LEGAL CASE - E.g. *R v Lacasse* (2015) on sentencing for impaired driving causing death' Nevsun with dissents! - Precedent: - Looking back at past cases - If past cases unclear/ have multiple different rules, then must engage in legal interpretation - Critical Role - Statutory Interpretation: Rules and Principles - Look at two places - What the law says - i.e. inside the law---the actual words of the law - What the law does not say, but we can find out - i.e. external evidence - parliamentary or legislative debates - commission reports - statements of those responsible for legislation - The Method - Three key rules - **Plain Meaning Rule** - Read the statute literally - **Golden Rule** - READ IT IN CONTEXT when reading it literally produces inconsistency, absurdity, or repugnancy - **The Mischief Rule ('Rule in Heydon's case')** - Read statute in accordance with its intentions, i.e. what did the legislature want? - Statutory Interpretation: Method - Three key grammatical principles - "THE EXPRESSION OF ONE IS THE EXCLUSION OF THE OTHER" (**Expressio unius est exlusiu alterius**) - If a law says one thing or class of things, it excludes others - i.e. taxing buildings with/ without land - LIMITED CLASS RULE (**ejusdem generis**) - "where a general word or phrase follows a list of specific terms, the general word will be interpreted to include only items of a similar nature to the terms specified" - TO BE KNOWN BY ITS ASSOCIATES (**noscitur a sociis**) - General word precedes list of specific words, only terms is defined to be similar in nature - E.g. license for motor vehicles - RULE IN PENAL STATUTES - Only relates to **criminal law** - Ambiguity is always resolved in favour to party facing penalty - Ultimate task of statutory interpretation is to determine the INTENTION of the LEGISLATURE in circumstances thar are, by definition, AMBIGUOUS - Note: some plain words will be displaced by law - E.g. marijuana defined legally as a narcotic - Judicial Discretion/ Deference - Parliament has the broad right to determine what the law is - Judges respect that parliament has this discretion (Courts should be reluctant to interfere with the views of the Parliament) - The Persons Case, 1929 - Five women who asked the government to interpret s.24 of the British North America Act (1867) to determine whether "person" included women - Mattered because a woman could only be appointed to Senate if women were persons under s.24 - Supreme Court: no, Privy Council: yes (in UK) - "The exclusion of women from all public offices is a RELIC OF DAYS MORE BARBARIOUS than ours. And to those who would ask why the word 'person' should include females, the obvious answer is, why should it not?" --Lord Sankey - Precedent - "the guiding hand of statutory interpretation" - "Remember the importance of precedent in giving a real-world application to the sometimes obtuse rhetoric of statutes" - ***Stare decisis***---"to stand by the decided things" - The decisions of the higher courts - Why? - Predictability - Stability - Certainty - Problems? - Rigidity, following illogical decisions, and issues of reversal