1. Statutory Interpretation

Question 1

What are the four rules of interpretation?

Answer 1

1. Literal rule
2. Golden rule
3. Mischief rule
4. Purposive rule

Question 2

What will the court do under the literal rule?

Answer 2

Apply the ordinary and literal meaning of the words of the statute, provided the words are unambiguous

Question 3

When do solicitors acquire rights of audience in lower courts?

Answer 3

immediately after being admitted to the roll as a solicitor

Question 4

Under the literal rule, will courts deviate from unambiguous wording even if the result is absurd?

Answer 4

No, even if the intention of the legislator must have been different from outcome/judgement reached.

Question 5

When will courts use the golden rule?

Answer 5

Where applying the literal rule would lead to a manifestly absurd and repugnant outcome.
- aims to avoid inconsistency and absurdity

Question 6

What will the court do under the mischief rule?

Answer 6

Focus on Parliament’s reason behind the enactment of the statute/provision rather than its wording

Consider the problem was the statute designed to remedy

Question 7

What will the court do under the purposive rule?

Answer 7

Look at the purpose and wider context surrounding the Act, namely extraneous documents (Hansard debates).
- wider than mischief rule

Question 8

What are the four latin rules of language in interpretation?

Answer 8

1. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius
2. Noscitur a sociis
3. In pari materia
4. Ejusdem generis

Question 9

What is the translation of expressio unius est exclusio alterius and what is the effect of this rule of language?

Answer 9

Expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.

If one or more things of a class are expressly mentioned in a statute, things not mentioned are excluded.

Question 10

What is the effect of noscitur a sociis?

Answer 10

A word will be interpreted in the context of the other words surrounding it

Question 11

What is the translation of in pari materia and what is the effect of this rule of language?

Answer 11

Upon the same matter/subject

Ambiguous words should be interpreted consistently with the same words in other statutes touching on the same matter.

Question 12

What is the translation of ejusdem generis and what is the effect of this rule of language?

Answer 12

Of the same type

If there are any ambiguous general words in a statute, which follow specific words, the general words should be interpreted as referring to things of the same type as the specific words.

• ie. if a statute prohibits the use of firearms, explosives, knives or “any other type of offensive weapon,” then in applying rule, “pen” is not envisaged in that list.

Question 13

Distinction between noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis

Answer 13

Noscitur a sociis concerns interpreting ambiguous words in the context of other words used in the section or statute generally.

Ejusdem generis concerns interpreting a general word (e.g. automobile) which follows specific words (e.g. car and van) in the context of those land-based vehicles and excluding e.g. planes or boats.

Question 14

What are the four rebuttable presumptions courts rely on when interpreting law?

Answer 14

Presumption:

1. Statutes do not bind the Crown
2. Statutes do not alter the common law
3. Presumed that mens rea is a requirement for all statutory criminal offences
4. Statutes do no operate/apply retrospectively

Question 15

Intrinsic aids to interpretation

Answer 15

Found within statute, include its preamble, marginal notes, punctuation, schedules

Question 16

Extrinsic aids to interpretation

Answer 16

Dictionaries, interpretation Acts, Hansard, academic sources, case law, textbooks, and other statutes/laws, treaties/conventions

Question 17

Rule in Pepper v Hart

Answer 17

HoL applied purposive approach and held that Hansard could be consulted as an external aid to statutory interpretation where the Act is ambiguous or obscure

Question 18

What is the contemporary approach to statutry interpretation?

Answer 18

1. unified, ‘contextual’ approach
2. look at the literal meaning of the words used and at the underlying purpose of the legislation, as a single mental process.
3. where there is a tension between the two the purposive interpretation will generally prevail where it provides a clear answer
4. otherwise the strict meaning will have to prevail, even if the court is uncomfortable with the result
5. not so much a choice between alternative “rules” as a progressive analysis in which the judge first considers the ordinary meaning of the words in the general context of the statute
6. moves on to consider other possibilities where the ordinary meaning leads to an absurd result.”