What are the presumptions of statutory interpretation?
It is a cardinal principle of interpretation that the words of a statute are first understood in their natural ordinary or popular sense and pharses and sentences construed according to their grammatical meaning unless that leads to some absurdity or unless there is something in the context or in the object of the …
What is the absurdity doctrine?
The absurdity doctrine is predicated on the idea that Congress enacts legislation against the constraints of limited foresight, resources, and time, and that general language will sometimes produce unanticipated results.
What are the three main rules of statutory interpretation?
In the construction (interpretation) of statutes, the principle aim of the court must be to carry out the “Intention of Parliament”, and the English courts developed three main rules (plus some minor ones) to assist them in the task. These were: the mischief rule, the literal rule, and the golden rule.
How many presumptions are there?
Presumptions are of 2 types: Presumptions of Fact and Presumptions of Law. Presumptions of Fact are always permissive, rebuttable and do not constitute a branch of jurisprudence. They are indicated in the IEA by the expression ‘may presume’ (refer sections 86-88, 90 and 114).
What are common law presumptions?
14.1 There is a common law presumption that ‘mens rea, an evil intention, or a knowledge of the wrongfulness of the act, is an essential ingredient in every offence’.
What are the three main methods judges use to interpret the law?
There are three main rules to interpret a statute; the literal, golden and mischief rule and also the integrated approach, known as the purposive approach.
What is absurdity in interpretation of statutes?
The doctrine of absurdity holds that commonsense interpretations should be preferred in such cases, rather than literal readings. Under the absurdity doctrine, American courts have interpreted statutes contrary to their plain meaning in order to avoid absurd legal conclusions. It is contrasted with literalism.
What is the purposive approach to statutory interpretation?
The purposive approach (sometimes referred to as purposivism, purposive construction, purposive interpretation, or the modern principle in construction) is an approach to statutory and constitutional interpretation under which common law courts interpret an enactment (a statute, part of a statute, or a clause of a …
What are the two kinds of presumptions?
The invocation of a presumption shifts the burden of proof from one party to the opposing party in a court trial. There are two types of presumption: rebuttable presumption and conclusive presumption. A rebuttable presumption is assumed true until a person proves otherwise (for example the presumption of innocence).
How does the presumption work in statutory interpretation?
In terms of the operation of the presumption in statutory interpretation, the approach of the courts have therefore been that where a statute has been capable of more than one interpretation or where the slightest degree of doubt arises when construing a provision of a statute, one has to give expression to the presumption…
What is the presumption in your V Padsha?
* R v Padsha. In terms of the operation of the presumption in statutory interpretation, the approach of the courts have therefore been that where a statute has been capable of more than one interpretation or where the slightest degree of doubt arises when construing a provision of a statute, one has to give expression to the presumption…
What is the importance of statutory interpretation?
Nowadays, statutory interpretation is very necessary because the problems of language have increased and languages are changing over time. Also, it is important because of the uncertainty, ambiguity, broad terms, hurried drafting and unforeseeable development. Presumptions: they are made by certain assumptions made by the courts.
What is a presumption in a criminal case?
Such as, a presumption that the crown is not bound by any statute unless it expressly says so, a presumption that legislation does not apply retrospectively, a presumption against a change in the common law and finally a presumption that is required in criminal cases.