Statutory interpretation is an art and not a science
- This is a preview of the essay.
To view the full text you must login!
It is logical to assume that it is not possible that all statutes are directed at the general public and therefore are designed to be understood by them. It could be argued that the form of the statutes is produced from experts for experts. So in many cases the usual practice is, it could be said, even for lawyers (experts) who are trying to use a statute outside their expertise they have to become acquainted with statute-handling techniques or rely on explanatory material. Complex as it is the courts naturally stand in a rather different position. Courts decisions are binding on the parties and may constitute a binding precedent for the future. Having that power of authority makes statutory interpretation a key issue.
The basic question if statutory interpretation is an art and not a science could be seen under the light of the above complexities and the ways the courts approach each time a statute for interpretation.
Many writers suggest that there are three rules of statutory interpretation: namely the Literal rule, the Golden rule and the Mischief rule. These rules were analysed by Professor John Willis in "Statute Interpretation in a Nutshell" . His suggestion was the following: "a court invokes whichever of the rules produces a result that satisfies its sense of justice in the case before it...