Duncan Bunce - With respect, there's nothing in law obliging judges (including magistrates) to follow any of the 'rules', or to say which one they are following if they do decide to follow one - how often does a judge say in court 'I'm being Golden today....' ?? That's the main reason why 'rules' is a very misleading wordhere, 'guidelines' is much more accurate. Also, since it's judges themselves who decide whether legislation is ambiguous or obscure or literally absurd, they can in practice choose whichever 'rule' they want to follow (if they choose to follow any of them). If a judge, or indeed a magistrate, decides and says that 'this legislation is literally absurd' no lawyer can 'stop' this decision - the judge/ magistrate rules !! Of course an appeal might result in a different decision.
Rules of Statutory Interpretation are not "rules" in the conventional context of the rules that compel our conduct. It would be more accurate to call them guidelines, thus, a Judge is not obliged to follow the rules of interpretation, otherwise, there would not have been dissenting judges in the Royal Nursing College v DHSS case, because all would have been obliged to reach a similar conclusion if that were the case. Rather, the "rules" of interpretation are employed as servants of the court, not masters of it. Judges are free to apply them or NOT apply them as they find fitting. What would be an apt argument, however, would be that the precedent set will have a certain degree of persuasiveness on future cases falling within the ambit of Royal Nursing College v DHSS. Correct me if I have misdirected myself here but I believe that the precedent set has more weight in as far as obliging the judiciary to adhere to stare decisis. Even more so, arguably, than the invocation of the Mischief Rule.
Hi, there. Might I introduce you to my channel on law essay tutorial guides? Please share around, thank you very much! th-cam.com/channels/ELl1qTwNOY77RwvaX2I55Q.html?view_as=subscriber
Thank you so much for this!!
I really and truly am grateful for this. It's very helpful. Thanks
Sheeree Smith Really pleased you're finding it useful. I will be updating with more videos shortly.
@@DuncanBunce please upload more. Have a paper in 4 days😭😭😭
This was sooo helpful! I’m using this as part of my revision. Thank u
thanks so much for your contribution especially to us the new learners
YOU'RE A LIFE SAVER!!! GOD BLESS YOU
for e too
Thank you for your video. You've helped to solidfy the 3 rules even further.
Glad I could help!
This is really helpful! Thanks so much for the video! It helped me a lot in understand the rules.
Thank you very much sir...This is really an exam Saver...This is really helpful especially the example cases!...
thank you , Sir ...
happy and contented to study through your videos.
please create more videos ....
Thank you Priyashini. I'm working on more - two more have been uploaded now.
Thank you so much ...
I highly appreciates your help..
Thank you so much, for now I have got knowledge about statutory interpretation
Hi Duncan,
thank you very much for your videos
very useful
regards
Maciej Symonowicz
teacher of legal and business English
Thank you so much, didn't know where to even start.
Glad I could help!
What about purposive approach?
Harrison Slough next video
Thankyou Duncan much appreciated.
Can you please upload more videos. I'm appearing for composite law paper and my As paper is in 4 days
Hope it went well, sorry I couldn't help at the time as I was very busy :-(
are judges obliged to follow the rules of statutory interpretation
Cilla Amadi yes they are obliged, having developed these rules bit by bit in order to reach appropriate judicial decisions over the years.
Duncan Bunce - With respect, there's nothing in law obliging judges (including magistrates) to follow any of the 'rules', or to say which one they are following if they do decide to follow one - how often does a judge say in court 'I'm being Golden today....' ?? That's the main reason why 'rules' is a very misleading wordhere, 'guidelines' is much more accurate. Also, since it's judges themselves who decide whether legislation is ambiguous or obscure or literally absurd, they can in practice choose whichever 'rule' they want to follow (if they choose to follow any of them). If a judge, or indeed a magistrate, decides and says that 'this legislation is literally absurd' no lawyer can 'stop' this decision - the judge/ magistrate rules !! Of course an appeal might result in a different decision.
Very true.... they are servants of the judiciary not masters
Rules of Statutory Interpretation are not "rules" in the conventional context of the rules that compel our conduct. It would be more accurate to call them guidelines, thus, a Judge is not obliged to follow the rules of interpretation, otherwise, there would not have been dissenting judges in the Royal Nursing College v DHSS case, because all would have been obliged to reach a similar conclusion if that were the case. Rather, the "rules" of interpretation are employed as servants of the court, not masters of it. Judges are free to apply them or NOT apply them as they find fitting.
What would be an apt argument, however, would be that the precedent set will have a certain degree of persuasiveness on future cases falling within the ambit of Royal Nursing College v DHSS. Correct me if I have misdirected myself here but I believe that the precedent set has more weight in as far as obliging the judiciary to adhere to stare decisis. Even more so, arguably, than the invocation of the Mischief Rule.
Very interesting leason sir.
Glad you liked it
Boi looking like Nick Frost :) Good, informative video by the way!
Hi, there. Might I introduce you to my channel on law essay tutorial guides? Please share around, thank you very much! th-cam.com/channels/ELl1qTwNOY77RwvaX2I55Q.html?view_as=subscriber
so helpful!!! thank you!
And that's how my assignment was answered
Hope you got top marks!
Thanks man. really helpful video
Thank you!
Sound is not audible
Seems to be OK when I checked.
helpful thank you
good
You lied, your advantages and disadvantages aren’t specified enough! :,(