1980 Ambiguity Of Judges

Statutes represent the intentions of Parliament who wish to keep social order with society. Judges are tasked with using these statutes and applying them to law as they are written. However, ambiguity is sometimes present in drafting of the statute and this can cause difficulty in interpreting what the statute or Parliament were trying to say. Judges in the UK therefore, interpret the statute in accord to the Interpretation Act 1978, which introduces rules that the judge needs to refer to when interpreting statutes. However, the interpretation is sometimes the complete opposite of what Parliament had intended to get from the statute, which can be seen as when judges trespass on the proper function of Government and the Legislature when exercising

This rule has its advantages as it respects parliamentary sovereignty, meaning the courts have limited power and do not question anything that parliament had intended. This also means that by using the literal rule, judges do not trespass on the proper function of Government and the Legislature when exercising their legal decision-making functions. However, the main disadvantage can be seen as the fact that it can lead to absurd conclusions, which is seen in the case of Fisher v Bell (1961) 1 QB 394, when the defendant advertised a flick knife in its shop window, violating the Restrictions of Offensive Weapons Act 1959. The courts held that the mere advertising of the knife was not an 'offer' as contract law would presume, but merely an 'invitation to treat' to make an offer and then buy if the customer wanted to. The defendant was therefore not guilty of a crime under the Act, despite the fact that was obviously just the sort of behaviour that the Act was set up to prevent

However, Lord Wensleydale found in the case of Grey v Pearson that there was still a presumption that the literal rule is used first. The advantage of using the Golden Rule is that it can prevent absurd and injustice results of using the literal rule. This is seen in the case of R v Allen . In R v Allen, the defendant was charged with bigamy under s.57 of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861. The stature states 'whosoever, being married, shall marry any other person during the life of the former husband or wife, whether the second marriage shall have taken place in England or Ireland or elsewhere, shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable . Using the literal interpretation, would make it harder to try the defendant as the second marriage would not be seen a valid anyway, so the court had to apply the golden rule which ensured that the word 'marry' meant going through with a 'marriage ceremony'. This advantage however, allows the judges to trespass on the proper function of Government and the Legislature when exercising their legal decision-making functions as they give their interpretation of the statute's wording, due to the ambiguity of the original statute, which is shown as a way of disrespecting the Legislative body. Another