Presumtion of Innocent Case Study Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2250 words

Presumtion of Innocent - Case Study Example Fair interpretation gives fair justice. Further, the rules, which are for guidance of human conduct, must be differentiated from rules of strict regulation. These rules of morality, which guide rather providing for strict regulation, must be recognised and allowed to stand. In the proper administration and enforcement of law, the distinction between criminal and civil matters should be clearly put in place, and in proper enforcement, there should be a clear court system where criminal and civil courts are in place. Whichever way, the rules of law must be clear and the enforcement agencies effective. A system of enforcement of the law lies before the Police and courts of law. These courts of law have been given discretion to award sentence or acquit. In their enforcement of the law, these officers should apply the law universally without fear or favour. The Police role of the Police in enforcement of law is maintaining public order and peace. Whenever the police have reason to doubt the commissioning of a crime, they must move in and prevent such a crime from happening. They must also investigate and prosecute the wrongdoers. The cause of action should be ascertained and the wrongdoers brought to justice. Conclusively, in enforcement of the law both agencies the courts of law and police must coordinate so that they can be able to enforce the law. Each organ should play its duty as prescribed in the law. Both the police and courts have the duty of enforcing the law so as to avoid a state of anarchy. Rules Which are Subject to Interpretation Interpretation is the act or result of interpreting, explanation, meaning translation, exposition etc (Webster's New World Dictionary. (i) Primary Rule (Literal rule) Under this rule the words of an enactment are to be given their ordinary and natural meaning and if such meaning is clear and unambiguous, effect should be given to a provision of a statute whatever may be the consequences. (ii) The Rule laid down in Heydon's case has attained the status of 'Mischief Rule'. The rule enables consideration of four matters in constructing an act: (i) What was the law before the making of the Act (ii) What was the mischief or defect for which the law did not provide (iii) What is the remedy that the Act has provided (iv) What is the reason of the remedy. The rule directs that the courts must adopt that construction which shall suppress the mischief and advance the remedy. Gardier v. SevenOaks (1950) The question in this case was if the cave was included in the word premises under English Statute. The court, Held it included and the statute therefore had application of X's case. (iii) Golden Rule Under this rule, a statute is interpreted in such a way as to remove any inconsistency, absurdity that might arise from a literal interpretation of the words used. Re Sigsworth (1935) The question here was whether x could be apparent heir as per the literal interpret