Meaning 2
(iii)
Effect 2
(ii)
Effect X
(i)
Meaning n
Figure 12.8 Meanings, Effects of Meanings and Effects of Policy
This diagram represents the three tasks involved in the following way:
#
Step (i) Ascertaining the Effect. Step (i) is to ascertain the effect
that the interpreting court seeks to achieve by its interpretation. This effect is
labelled Effect X. This is the effect that Statute X seeks to achieve.
#
Step (ii) Matching the Effect. Step (ii) is to match this effect with
an effect in the list of effects caused by the meaning of the ambiguous
provision. In this example, Effect X matches (is the same as) Effect 2 in the
column “Effects of Meanings”. Thus Effect X
Effect 2. Effect X is set out
on the same line as Effect 2 to highlight this relationship.
#
Step (iii) Ascertaining the Meaning. Step (iii) is to ascertain the meaning
of the ambiguous provision that causes this effect. It can be seen from the
diagram that Effect 2 is caused by Meaning 2. Therefore Meaning 2 is the
meaning that the policy behind the statute argues for, or points to, as the
legally correct meaning.
Interpreting by Meanings
In the situation where a court is interpreting law by reference to actual
legislative intent this intent may be expressed as a desired effect rather than a
desired meaning. This can be explained by reference to the following table:
Legislative Intent
Meanings
Effects
Meaning X
Meaning 1
Effect 1
Meaning 2
Effect 2
Meaning n
Effect n
Figure 12.9 Legislative Intent as a Meaning
Here the ambiguity consists of Meanings 1-n that cause Effects 1-n. The
legislature’s only discernible intention is that Meaning X is the intended
meaning of the provision. In this case, the best the court can do is to find the
meaning that corresponds with, or most corresponds with, Meaning X and
pronounce this as the official legal meaning of the provision. In fact, Meaning
X corresponds with Meaning 1 so the court should declare Meaning 1 as the
correct legal meaning of the provision. Meaning 1 will cause Effect 1, but this
is of no direct concern to the court.
Interpreting Common Law
The same logic that says policy should be used for interpreting statutes
dictates that policy should be used for interpreting common law. Sources of
policy for common law are scattered throughout the judgments where the rule
has been made, altered, interpreted and applied. Account of the policy that
 |
 |
 |