There are always arguments in court which are about the interpretation of a text and judges have to decide what the right interpretation is. Therefore, everyone should be agreed on this fact the interpretation is a key part of legal practice, whether in common law countries or not. It is an offence to wear yellow stockings in a public place A) In the first scenario, Beatrice was using yellow stockings as a scarf, wrapping them round her neck, in the High Street. While judge will try to interpret this scenario he might required to give the clear definition of the term 'public place'.
The legal meaning of public place is given in the Criminal justice Act 1988 section 139(7) and his act provided that "public place" includes any highway other premises or place to which at the material time the public have or are permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise. This is considered as intrinsic aids to interpretation. Therefore, high street is undoubtedly a public place. In the purpose of indentifying the meaning of 'stockings' judge can look into dictionaries which is considered as extrinsic aids to interpretation.
However, If judge consider R v Judge of the City of London Court (1892) then judge should reached on the decision that if words are clear, they must be applied even though intention of legislator may have been different and result harsh and undesirable(Barak). According to this, judge could reached on this decision that Beatrice has committed an offence. B) In this scenario, Beatrice was wearing one yellow stocking and one red stocking in the High Street. The legal meaning of 'public place' is given in justice Act 1988 section 139(7).
As far as words in a statute are clear and give natural meaning judge should use literal rule to interpret. Therefore, judge apply literal rule here Beatrice as committed no offence. According to the statutory provision she would have committed an offence if she were wearing both yellow colour stockings . However, in this scenario she was wearing one yellow stocking and one red stocking which mean she has did not commit any offence even though she was wearing those in the high Street. As the example for interpreting this scenario judge might look into R v Judge of the City of London Court .
C) Moreover, in this scenario Beatrice was wearing yellow stockings whilst in the Keyworth Building of LSBU. While judge will try to give an interpretation to this instance he/she need give an clear meaning of the term 'public place'. The word 'public place' is given its legal meaning in the Criminal justice Act 1988 subsection 139(7). If judge adopt literal rule for interpreting whether offence is not committed or not then judge should reached at the decision that Beatrice hadn't committed an offence.
LSBU's Keyworth building is not a public place because entrance is restricted for public and only students, staffs, teacher and other relevant authorities are allowed to entry at Keyworth building. Therefore, the court could reached at this decision that she didn't commit any offence when adopting applying literal rule (R v Judge of the City of London Court ). D) Public place has its own legal meaning and which is stated in Criminal Justice act 1988 subsection 139(7). To interpreting this Judge might adopt Literal rule.
Under this rule if the words in statute is clear and natural and so far they do not produce an absurd or totally obnoxious result then, it must be applied(R v Judge of the City of London Court ). If judge adopt literal rule to interpret this then Beatrice did not commit any offence. It can be argued that wearing yellow stockings in public place is an offence according to statute but she was wearing stockings with equal width stripes of yellow and blue which is not an offence . E) Criminal Justice act 1998 subsection 139(7) gives the legal meaning of public place.
It is correct to say that high street is public place. According to literal rule Beatrice has committed crime as she was wearing yellow stockings in public place on Thursday. But it is contrary to The Equality act 2006 para 46(1)(a). Part 2 of the Equality act 2006 is concern about Discrimination on the ground of religion belif. Para 46(1)(a) of his acct provided that it is unlawful for a person ("A") concerned with the provision to the public or a section of the public of goods, facilities or services to discriminate against a person ("B") who seeks to obtain or use those goods, facilities or services(opsi).
Therefore, on the religion ground court might reached the decision that Beatrice did not commit any offence. F) In this scenario, Beatrice was wearing yellow stockings underneath trousers in public place. If judge may apply literal rule to interpret this then Beatrice did not commit any offence. Because she was wearing the stockings underneath the trouser. G) Beatrice, who is blind was wearing yellow stockings in public place. If judge apply literal rule here then Beatrice has committed an offence. It is absurd to punish a blind person on the ground of wearing yellow stockings.
H) The legal meaning of public place is given in the Criminal justice Act 1988 (opsi). In this statute meaning of all words are clear and natural. While interpret this statute judge should adopt literal rule and according to this rule Beatrice has not committed any crime. Because words in the statute is clear and states that it is an offence to wear yellow socks, stockings or leggings in a public place. But Beatrice was wearing yellow legwarmer in public place . Therefore, Beatrice did not commit any ofeence.