Approaches Flashcards
What is statutory interpretation?
The way in which a judge interprets the law and makes a decision.
What are the two general approaches that judges can take?
- Literal
- Purposive
What is a literal approach?
The literal approach holds that the judge, when interpreting statutes, should only look at the strict literal meaning of the legislation as drafted and approved by parliament (LNER v Berriman)
It’s a very comprehensive approach and aims to provide as much detail in the Acts as possible. This approach recognises the role of the judge as the enforcer of the law not the creator or modifier of it
It also recognises the legislative supremacy of parliament and that a judge should not have the discretion or power to question or ignore.
What is a purposive approach?
A more practical approach to statutory interpretation which allows the judges greater flexibility and discretion in interpreting the law. It allows the judge greater powers to look into the meaning and purpose of the legislation in order to reach an outcome that the judge thinks that parliament intended. Judges are more interested in understanding the basic purpose of the legislation in order to reach an outcome that the judge thinks that parliament intended. Judges are more interested in understanding the basic purpose or objectives of the Act rather than every single word within it
What are rules of statutory interpretation
Examples and more detail into when to us either approach
What are the two examples of literal rule?
- LNER v Berriman
- R v Reynolds
What was the LNER v Berriman case about?
Where the judge interpreted the Fatal Accidents Act (1846) and decided that as the claimant was merely oiling the track, it was maintenance and not relaying or repairing as the Act specified. Therefore, the case failed.
What was the R v Reynolds case about?
Involved an interpretation of s.17 of The Juries Act (1974) which states that in a majority verdict “it must be stated how how many jurors agree and how many disagree. In this case the foreman declared that ‘ten agreed’ at the trial and the defendant was convicted. However, on appeal because he had not said how many disagreed (even though it was obvious) the conviction was quashed. Possibly an absurd result but there is good reasoning behind it and demonstrates the literal rule well.
What is the “Golden rule”
A less strict literal approach which is used to allow exceptions of the Act to avoid absurd results.
What are the two examples of the golden rule?
- R v NIC (national insurance commissioner)
- R v Allen
What was the R v NIC case about?
Where the judges had to interpret the Social Security Act (1957) which states “All widows are entitled to a widows allowance following the death of their husbands”
In this case the widow killed her husband so to avoid an absurd result by being too literal the judge didn’t give the widow the allowance.
What was the R v Allen case about?
Where Mr Allen was married to Mrs Allen. While still married to her he married another woman so he committed bigamy. The Act associated with this case was the Offences Against Person Act (OAPA) which states “An offence where anyone married married another”. Mr Allen’s lawyer spotted a technicality with the wording of the law which makes it impossible for someone to marry again after already being married. So they took a purposive result to avoid an absurd result.
