The principal powers available to the courts in England & Wales in Essay

The principal powers available to the courts in England & Wales in connection with statutory interpretation - Essay Example The literal rule means that the words in the statue are given their ordinary and natural meaning .I t is supposed that if some extraordinary meaning was to be given to a particular word, the lawmakers would have specified it in the statue and if they have not; then the ordinary meaning of the word should be followed. The 18th and 19th century saw a trend towards the strict implementation of the literal rule for the statutory interpretation. This was the era in which the supremacy of the Parliament had been established and courts were reluctant to give any other meaning to law other than the one which had been explicitly stated by the parliamentarians. In the Sussex Peerage Case of 1844 the court made the observation that if the words of the statue are precise and unambiguous; then the courts do not need to interpret them in any other way or take a broad view of the words used in the statue. The court observed in the above-mentioned case that the words of the parliament give the best indication of the intention of framing the statue, no further exploration of the intent is required by the courts of law.1 The literal rule has been hailed by many jurists as well as the law commission. This rule is said to have encouraged precision in drafting of the statues. It also ensures that law making remains the preserve of the elected representatives of the people and the courts are not able to give a new direction or definition to the law. The judge it is argues should not be given the flexibility to take a broad view of the law as it is not their function to make laws. However the law commission of 1969 was critical of the courts for relying too heavily on the literal rule2. The commission observed that there are many limitations of language which should not become the ground for denial of justice. The judges will be abdicating their responsibilities if they were to give more weight age to the words rather than to the intent with which the law has been framed. The Golden Rule If after applying the literal rule of statutory interpretation the courts arrive at a result which is absurd or arbitrary, the courts can substitute a new meaning in place of the absurd result. This is called as the Golden rule of the statutory interpretation. The Golden rule of the statutory interpretation ensures that the intent of the law makers is given precedence over the actual words which are used in the statue. The Adler vs. George case of 1964 is considered as a classic example of this rule’s interpretation.3 This case was concerned with the conviction of a person under the Official Secrets Act of 1920 in which he was charged with creating nuisance and hindering the work of officials in the Royal Air Force Station. The official secrets acts said that a person who creates hindrance in the ‘vicinity’ of a Government installation is liable for punishment. The defendant claimed that he