Common-Law Method and Ethics

Introduction

Slavery and servitude are the offenses attracting the attention of both UK courts and the European Court of Human Rights. As can be seen from the case, the consideration of such crimes is complicated by the ambiguity of specific legal regulations and the presumptions stemming from them. Therefore, this paper aims at assessing the applicable construction and statutory rules, accompanying difficulties, and the role of all participants in similar matters to present the current practices of the English Legal System in this respect.

The Principal Rule and UK Legislation

Lord Justice Godstone resorted to specific construction and statutory interpretation rules. The former was presented by contra proferentem¹ which implies the Modern Slavery Act’s ambiguity regarding the definition of slavery. According to it, its provisions should be examined for the benefit of the victim rather than the criminal. The latter, in turn, includes the mischief rule² indicating the dominant importance of the legislators’ intention in creating the Act in contrast to its literal meaning.

The other two rules, the literal rule³ and the golden rule⁴ indicating the exact interpretation of texts and the attempts to understand their initial meaning, respectively, are not applicable to the case. Therefore, the implemented principle is influenced by the Human Rights Act 1998⁵ since Section 3 of this document provides for the need to ensure the correspondence of domestic acts to ECHR law⁶. More specifically, it relates to the prohibition of slavery by Article 4 of the Human Rights Convention⁷. Therefore, UK legislation should consider such regulations alongside the Modern Slavery Act.

The Difficulty in Making Decisions and Its Resolution

In the process of making a decision regarding the defendant’s guilt, Lord Justice Godstone faced the problem of defining the presence of physical restraining in the situation, indicating that the committed offense relates to slavery. From this perspective, Section 1 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015⁸ seems ambiguous since it does not consider indirect circumstances. Hence, the difficulty was connected to the fact that Mr. Jones was not held in the factory, while Mr. Marsh created such conditions that the former’s escape was impossible.

For this purpose, Lord Justice Godstone used particular aids which played a significant role in the outcome of the case appeal. Thus, he turned to the dictionary for the definition of the word ‘slavery.’ He also used the precedent of Pepper v Hart⁹ regarding statutory interpretation permitting to refer to the statements of the House of Commons. This doctrine is the rule, according to which the similarity of cases in the past with the current situation results in pronouncing the same verdict. In this way, the implemented methods allowed concluding on the inclusion of low-paid hard work in the Act and the need to protect victims by paying particular attention to indirect factors, respectively.

The Role of the Presumption

During the proceedings, Lord Justice Godstone declined the presumption against criminal liability resulting from the alleged unintentional nature of Mr. Marsh’s actions. He claimed that it did not exempt him from the responsibility since he was aware of the fact that he was violating the applicable law. In this way, this aspect of the matter negatively affected the alleged innocence of the criminal since, by applying it, he confirmed his involvement in the offense. This situation allows concluding on the significant role of an attempt to present one’s actions in a different light since it indicates quite the opposite or, in other words, proves the guilt of the defendant.

The Supreme Court, the European Court of Human Rights, and UK Courts

The case under consideration could be taken to the Supreme Court. However, it would be possible solely under the conditions of its compliance with specific requirements. First, the appeal to it is not admissible to all local courts which implies the need to verify the institution’s rights in this aspect¹⁰. Second, it can be done only if the court considering the case refused to grant you permission to appeal against the latest judgment¹¹. In this way, the chances for a hearing in the Supreme Court are restricted by the specified rules.

This procedure is guided by the existing structure of courts in England and Wales, implying the necessity to appeal to them in a hierarchical order. Thus, after the magistrates’ court, the case follows to the Crown Court, then the High Court, and only afterward to the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court¹². In turn, the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights could also affect UK courts’ procedures connected to slavery. They are obliged to interfere when there is a need to take preventive measures in terms of individuals’ protection from the criminal acts of other persons¹³. Otherwise, the principal guidance will be a series of corresponding cases such as the Somerset Case¹⁴ or Shanley v. Harvey¹⁵. Hence, these precedents complement the efforts of UK courts and ECHR.

Conclusion

To summarize, the English Legal System’s regulations of issues regarding slavery and servitude imply the guidance by the Modern Slavery Act and numerous precedents. The current court structure indicates the necessity for a case to pass through the entire hierarchy of courts to the Supreme Court. However, there is a change of interventions of the European Court of Human Rights since this organization is responsible for the resolution of similar matters at the inter-state level.

Reference List

‘Annual Report 2019’ (European Court of Human Rights, n.d.). Web.

‘English Law Rules for Statutory Interpretation’ (LawTeacher, 2019). Web.

‘How to Appeal’ (The Supreme Court, n.d.).

‘Impact of the Human Rights Act’ (LawTeacher, 2019). Web.

‘Structure of the Courts & Tribunal System’ (Courts and Tribunal Judiciary, n.d.).

‘The Contra Proferentem Rule’ (OpenLearn, n.d.).

Footnotes

1. ‘The Contra Proferentem Rule’ (OpenLearn, n.d.). Web.
2. ‘English Law Rules for Statutory Interpretation’ (LawTeacher, 2019). Web.
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Human Rights Act, s 3 (2)(c).
6. ‘Impact of the Human Rights Act’ (LawTeacher, 2019). Web.
7. Human Rights Convention (a1950) European Convention on Human Rights art 4.
8. Modern Slavery Act 2015, s 1 (3).
9. Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593 (HL).
10. ‘How to Appeal’ (The Supreme Court, n.d.). Web.
11. Ibid.
12. ‘Structure of the Courts & Tribunal System’ (Courts and Tribunal Judiciary, n.d.). Web.
13. ‘Annual Report 2019’ (European Court of Human Rights, n.d.). Web.
14. Somerset v Stewart (1772) 98 ER 499 (King’s Bench).
15. Shanley v Harvey (1763) 2 Eden 126 (HC Ch).