Interpretation of Statutes

Judges have a mandate of resolving of making such statutes clear if not well interpreted. An example of unclear language emerged in the case of Myers v Twining in the year 1982. The judges were to make a decision on the association between a vehicle and roller skates.Many cases have been presented in courts with change of meaning of words over time. Some bills are rushed in parliament in time of emergency, hence the need for interpretation as a result of many errors that takes place during the act. The dilemma with statutory interpretation is that the court has to decide the meaning of a certain legislation passed by the parliament. The court makes judgement on the parliament’s intention when passing the law and its relevance in the present time2. On some cases however, the judges have often misinterpreted the legislation of the act. Other issues which may arise during the interpretation of the statutes must abide by the European laws or the human right acts. Misinterpretation of the parliamentary acts and legislation may contradict higher laws or lead to creation of new legislation that was not the intention of the parliament during the passing of such a bill or act. Judges deal with interpretation of statutes in a variety of ways. One way in which judges interpret statutes is by presumption. The judge is such a context begins the interpretation process by assumption of certain issues.The assumption may be considered to be true unless a better argument is raised with an intention to challenge it. Some of presumptions entail the inability to change the law and that the statutes do not influence the acts created in the past. Presumption of language is another challenge encountered during the interpretation of certain statutes. Utilization of words such as workman, tradesman or other person presents a lot of confusion during the interpretation process. Some words derive meaning from the surrounding environment3. The judges