evaluation of the purposive approach

• how does the purposive approach avoid the injustice of the literal approach?

  It allows judges to consider the law's purpose and intent, leading to fairer outcomes by avoiding rigid applications that coudl result in unjust decisions.
• how does the purpose approach prevent absurdity in legal interpretations?

  By focusing on the purpose behind the legislation, the purposive approach helps judges avoid interpretations that would lead to absurd or unreasonable results.
• How does the purposive approach allow the law to develop over time?

  The purposive approach enables the law to adapt to changing societal norms, environments, and new technologies by considered the broader context and purpose of the legislation.
• what is the benefit of judges having discretion in their decisions under the purposive approach?

  Judges can excercise discretion to ensure that legal decisions align with the law's intended purpose- leading to more just and equitable outcomes.
• why is it a disadvantage that judges may end up making the law under the purposive approach?

  It can lead to judicial law making which is problematic as it blurs the seperation of powers and encroach on the legislative role of the executive
• how can the purposive approach be retrospective and unfair to the defendant?

  The purposive approach may lead to retrospective interpretations of the law, applying rules in ways which defendants couldnt have anticipated, which can be seen as unfair.
• why is referring to hansard considered a disasvantage in the purposive approach?

  Using hansard, the official report of parliamentry debates, may only reflect the opinions of individual members instead of the collective intention of parliament- potentially leading to biased interpretations.
• WHat are time and expense disadvantages of researching extrinsic aids in terms of the purposive approach?

  Researching extrinsic aids, such as legislative history and related documents, can be time consuming and expensive- this adds complexity to the judicial process.
• why is it considered undemocratic for judges to use the purposive approach?

  Judges are not elected officials, so their interpretation under the purposive approach may be seen as undemocratic as they make decisions which can impact public policy without direct accountability to the electorate.
• why is defining parliamentry intention difficult and subjective under the purposive approach?

  Parliamentry intention can be challenging to define and interperet objectively, as it may involve subjective judgements about what lawmakers intended which can lead to inconcsistent applications of the law.