The “targeted approach” is a method used by judges to interpret what laws (or laws) mean. The deliberate approach requires a court to consider the purpose of the law and the intent of Parliament (or a legislator) in creating the law, as well as the words written in the statute itself. The words must be interpreted in the broader context of the law itself. [1] This approach has since been endorsed by the Supreme Court of Canada in a number of cases and is now the predominant approach to interpreting statutes. Unlike Justice Breyer`s strong form of purposivism, “weak purposivists” could only consult the purpose of the law to interpret vague provisions of its text and in no way override the text. Ayr Farmers makes it clear that legislative intent is important. Even if Parliament has taken the trouble to define a concept in a statute, the Court assesses the concept defined according to the purpose and history of the law. Citing Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd, the Court of Appeal began its analysis by stating, among other things, that the modern approach to statutory interpretation requires that the terms of a statute “be read in their overall context and in their grammatical and ordinary sense in accordance with the scheme of the law, the purpose of the law. and the intention of Parliament”. This approach has emerged more recently. Here, the court not only looks at what the loophole in the old law was, but it also makes a decision on what it believes Parliament wanted to achieve. Lord Denning gave an explanation before the Court of Appeal in Magor and St. Mellons Rural District Council v Newport Corporation (1950): “We sit here to discover and realize the intent of Parliament and ministers, and we do it best by filling in the gaps and understanding the Order in Council by opening it to destructive analysis.” In general, prima facie is given as a general rule of legal interpretation.
If the words are clear and unambiguous, there is no need for other means of interpretation. However, if the wording of the law is vague and ambiguous, domestic assistance may be used for interpretation. This means that the law must be read in its entirety, what is not clear in one section can be explained in another. These comments highlight a problem with the goal-based approach. How do we determine Parliament`s intentions and whether judges should really refuse to follow Parliament`s clear words? The targeted approach is used by most continental European countries when interpreting their own legislation. This is also the approach taken by the Court of Justice of the European Communities when interpreting EU law. Australia`s Acts Interpretation Act 1901 states that the interpretation that best achieves the object or purpose of the Act is preferable to all other interpretations. In determining the purpose of a statutory provision, courts should consider the context of the provision from the outset, not just where there are ambiguities or contradictions. The legal context 1) the relevant justifications for the statutes and 2) the reports of advisory bodies, such as Legal Commissions, which created the need for special legal provisions. (See CIC Insurance Limited v Bankstown Football Club Limited (1997) 187 CLR 384, p. 408; see also Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), s15AB.) As a leading advocate of the Court`s objective, Justice Stephen Breyer considers that the determination and interpretation of the purpose of a statute is paramount.
[30] A good example of Breyer`s approach might be his dissent in Medellín v. Texas (2008), where he criticized the court`s interpretation of a contract because it “looks for the wrong (explicit text phrase about self-performance) with the wrong standard (clarity) in the wrong place (the contract wording)”; In response, “the Court agreed that we think it is very important to look at the wording of the treaty to see what it has to say on the subject. After all, that is what the Senate pays attention to when deciding whether or not to accept the treaty. [31] Since the United Kingdom`s accession to the European Economic Community in 1973, the influence of the European preference for the goal-oriented approach has influenced the English courts in many ways. First, courts must recognize that, since 1973, the objective-based approach has been applied to adjudicate EU matters. Second, by applying the objective-oriented approach to EU law, they become accustomed to using it and are more likely to use it to interpret national law. An example is Pickstone v. Freemans plc (1998).
Here, female warehouse workers were paid in the same way as male warehouse workers. However, Ms Pickstone claimed that the work of the warehouse workers was of the same value as that of the male warehouse inspectors, who received £1.22 more per week than she was. The employers argued that a warehouse worker was employed for the same work as male warehouse workers, so that she could not make a complaint under section 1 § 2 (c) of the Equal Pay for Work of Equal Value Act 1970. This was a literal interpretation of the 1970 Act. The House of Lords ruled that the literal approach would have led the UK to breach its treaty obligations to give effect to an EU directive. She therefore applied the deliberate approach, concluding that Ms. Pickstone was entitled to make claims on the basis of work of equal value, even if there was a male worker performing the same work as her. Aharon Barak is the best-known advocate of opportunism in Israel. Its particular form of purposivism involves a synthesis of subjective elements, such as the author`s intention, with objective elements, such as textual evidence. [20] Barak believes that the text is the source of the purpose, but is willing to go beyond the text in certain circumstances to examine the subjective intentions of the textual author. Barak thinks intentionalism is too limited in its assessment of subjectivity.
[20] All sources, including Hansard, can be consulted to determine Parliament`s intent. Lord Griffiths stated: Section 5(1) of the Interpretation Act 1999 provides that laws are to be interpreted according to their purpose. [23] A recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision, Ayr Farmers Mutual Insurance Co. v. Wright, 2016 ONCA 789, Simmons J. emphasized the central importance of the purpose of a statute in determining the meaning of certain provisions of a statute. Introduction to Law InterpretationThe purpose of legal interpretation is to arrive at the legal meaning of legislation, that is, the meaning conveyed by the intention of the legislator.