ARHIVELE OLTENIEI - Universitatea din Craiova

280Elena Alexandra IlincaIt is also submitted that judges in order to cope with unforeseensituations have to be given a degree of flexibility.The judicial function in interpreting statutes is to give effect to the sovereignwill of the Parliament, but what judges are required is to choose what the correctinterpretation is in their opinion, which is a very subjective matter of fact.Judges not always set out to interpret Acts according to the intent ofParliament. Some decisions were in fact so bad that the Parliament had to rule itby statute. E.g. Fisher v Bell 1961The most flagrant disregard for the wishes of Parliament is considered tobe Anisminic Ltd v Foreign Compensation Commission 1969 where judgesdemonstrated that Parliament’s power and supremacy depend on theenforcement of its statutes and that sovereignty depends on the acquiescence ofthe courts to Parliament’s power.Judicial interpretation is encouraged in case certain circumstances arenot taken into consideration by the legislator or when inadvertent slips oromissions appear.In such cases words are afforded significance that their drafters did notintend. It is judge’s job to fill the gaps when a situation was not taken intoconsideration or when there is a “cassus omissus” but it cannot be denied thatthis allows judges to act abusive.The effect of the purposive approach is usually achieved by the literalrule since Parliament tends to enact its intent. When judges use a purposiveapproach, they are engaging in a legislative function which could be consideredas a breach of the doctrine of separation of powers. It must be admitted that thismight be a chance for judges to actually crate law using what they understand by“intent” of Parliament.The literal rule means the interpretation of Acts purely according to theirliteral meaning, unless it creates absurd or immoral results. The question of whatis immoral or absurd and therefore allowing the plain words of a statute to beignored is a subjective one, and so the judge’s interpretation will vary.Although the literal rule sounds simple, the ordinary meaning of wordsmay vary, so that problems frequently occur e.g. Whitley v Chappel [1868] 4LRQB 147.As a word might have more than one ordinary meaning it depends on thejudge’s option to choose either of the meanings, so the same word could begiven different meanings which could lead to different effect.Even though English judges are given an important role in applying law,in filling the omissions of the legislator, or in areas which are not regulated bystatute, they are inferior to laws passed by Parliament, and their role as lawmakersis limited.The judges are free to decide which rule of interpretation to apply in certaincircumstances, and as different rules or combinations of rules lead to different oreven contrary results, judge’s choice decisive to the outcome of the case.