Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Delegated Legislation - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Too rigid – no flexibility for the law to meet changing conditions. Too simplistic – it ignores the nature and complexity of language. The meaning of words can be unclear or ambiguous or can change over time.
      - It assumes perfection in drafting that is not attainable.
      - Can lead to unjust (Berriman) or absurd decisions (Whiteley v. Chappell).
    - - Respects Supremacy of Parliament. Democratic as unelected judges do not undermine the role of Parliament. Provides certainty and consistency because it follows the words used by Parliament. All judges will reach same conclusion. Predictable – therefore reduces litigation as lawyers can advise clients on outcome of a case.
  - - - What constitutes “absurdity”? This may vary according to how a judge sees an issue and is open to interpretation. It could be argued that the result in Whiteley v Chappell was an absurd result. It is unpredictable as different judges may come to different decisions as to what is absurd.
      - ‘A feeble parachute’ (Zander) – judges are limited by words and cannot depart from them.
    - - Recognises the constitutional position of Judges (they interpret and enforce the law).
      - Limits power of judges as only applies when there is an absurd or unjust result.
      - Avoids absurd results (e.g. Allen) or unjust results (Sigsworth) produced by Literal Rule.
  - - - Gives judges too much freedom to develop law. Only applies in limited situations - can only be used where there is a problem in pre-existing law.
      - Difficulty of identifying the mischief / problem before new law passed; Undermines the Supremacy of Parliament. Parliament should rectify the errors in an Act not judges.
    - - Allows greater flexibility in interpreting legislation in the light of social & technological changes;
      - Can enable judges to achieve the true intentions of Parliament.
  - - - Parliament should rectify the errors in an Act not judges;
      - Unpredictable & inconsistent outcomes as judges determine what Parliament’s intention.
      - Undermines Parliament as supreme law making body;
      - The words in a statute are the only true indication of Parliament’s intention. The purposive approach goes behind them and gives judges too much influence in deciding on the meaning.
    - - More flexible than the other rules.
      - Avoids injustice and absurdity that could be caused by a strict literal interpretation;
      - It gives judges the most freedom in interpreting the law to give effect to the true intentions of Parliament;
      - Permits use of extrinsic aids to assist in finding Parliament’s true intention.
- - - - Only words of the Minister sponsoring the Bill may be used; and
      - The Ministerial statements are clear and explicit.
      - Legislation is unclear or ambiguous;