ROLE OF PRECEDENT IN STATUTORY INTERPRATATION

The major source of law is Precedent which is following the doctrine of „Stare Decisis‟. The meaning of this is that “the judges are obliged to stand by the precedents established by prior decisions”. The previous decisions are being followed by the Appellate Court. Statutory interpretation is passed by Parliament. There are four ways through which statutory interpretation is put. Literal rule is the first way through which statutory interpretation is put. Besides this it is very popular and easiest. In the case of Brock v DPP dispute was arose related to the types of dangerous dogs in dangerous dog‟s act 1991 as pitbull was included in this act which had the characteristics of a normal dog. Golden rule is the second method. It is somewhat similar to the first rule itself. This rule can be applied in two was such as the wider application or narrow application. The third method is the mischief rule which gives the judge much more power over their decisions as the court will look at the actual issue „gap‟ and try to „bridge‟ that gap rather than just look at the words of the Act itself. The final, purposive approach is one step higher then the mischief rule.