Chp 5 Statutory Interprea Flashcards
Why do we need statutory interpretation?
broad terms-could have several possibilities- e.g dangerous dogs act1991 pitbull terrier breed or type
ambiguity
drafting error -e.g ss 18 and 20 offenses against the person act section 18 usrs word cause 20 uses inflict
new technology- e.g royalcollege of nhrsing v dhss medical sciemce methods have changed.
chnages in use of language-e.g in cheeseman v dpp
The three rules
Literal rule
Golden rule
Mischief rule
The literal rule
Often makes ruling absurd or harsh
Gives the words their plain ordinary or dictionary meaning
E.g whitely v Chappell- defendant was changed under a section which made it an offence to impersonate any person entitled to vote.defendant had pretended to be a person whose name was on the voters list but was dead.but found not guilty as a dead person in the literal meaning is not entitled to vote
E.g London &north eastern railway co. V Berriman-railway worker killed whilst doing maintenance work. Widow tried to claim compensation as there had not been a look out man provided by company as in accordance with fatal accidents act (stating a look out should be provided for men working near railway line ‘for purposes or relaying or repairing’). However the man had been oiling and the court took the literal meaning and so said it didn’t count as repairing as so didn’t give compensation.
Golden rule
Modification of the literal rule and avoids interpretation that is absurd
Court can only choose between posible meanings of word or phrase.
E.g Adler v George 1964 official secrets act 1920 meant that it was on the fence obstruct her majesties forces in the vicinity of a prohibited place defendants obstructed HM forces actually in the prohibited place argued not guilty as the literal wording did not apply to anyone inside but divisional court found defendants guilty as it would’ve been absurd if there’s causing the obstruction outside were guilty but anyone inside was not.
E.g re sigworth (1935) Son murdered mother mother hadn’t made a well normally would go straight next to King by rule set out in the administration of Justice at 19:25 but did not apply the role as a murderer inheriting her wealth.
The mischief rule
Looks back to the gap and the previous law and interpret the act so to cover the gap
Four points of judge should consider what is the common law before making of the act to what was the mischief and effect for which the common law do not provide three what was the remedy of the parliament has resolved and appointed to cure the disease of the Commonwealth for the reason of the remedy then the office of all the judges always make such construction as shall suppress the mischief as advance remedy
E.g Smith, v Hughes 1960- street offences act 1959 said it should be in the fence for a common prostitute to loiter or solicit in a street of public place for the purpose of prostitution six different women tried to appeal this stating they had not been in a street has been on balconies or had windows half open trying to trap them but the court decided that they were guilty as they were still trying to act trying to prevent
E.Eastbourne borough council v sterling Taxi driver charged with flying for hire in any Street without a license to do so vehicle parked on a taxi rank on station for court not street still found guilty as you’re still likely to get customers from the street
E.g Royal College of nursing v DHSS 1981 in abortion act 1967 stated that pregnancy should be terminated by registered medical practitioner when act first started doctors perform the entire abortion but from 1972 due to improvements of medical technique doctor part and nurse the other half and had to be decided this lawfuljudges decision on the mischief rule pointing out the mischief pollen was trying to remedy was the unsatisfactory state of the law before 1967 and the number of illegal abortions
The purposive approach
Courts look to see what is the purpose of the law
E.g r v registration general X parte smith 1990 - had to consider section 51 of the adoption at 1976. That stated that the registered general must make a note of their birth and when the adopting is 18 years old supply it to them so they have a certified copy of the record of their birth. If by the literal meaning then Mr Smith who requested information to help them obtain his birth certificate should’ve been done it as he was willing to see counsellor and went through the proper roots, but he was convicted to murders and entertained in Portmoor with psychotic illness and psychiatrist thought he might be hostile towards his natural mother so judges chose the poor post of approach deciding that spite the plain language of the act. Parliament could not have wanted to promote serious crime crime towards the applicants natural mother so they were the registered. Jen did not have to supply any information.
E.g r v human fertilisation and embryology authority 2003- each of our had to decide whether the organisms created by cell nuclear replacement came within definition of an embryo in the human fertilisation and embryology act 1990. 40,003 only one method of creating an embryo but now have CNR so Lord Bingham stated that they should be covered by the 1990 act.
Internal
AIDS internal aids matters within the statue itself e.g. the long title short title and the preamble which sets out parliaments purpose in acting that statue some act may have an interpretation section also can use any headings before a group of sections and any schedules attach the act also maybe marginal notes Can also use other sections in the act.
E.g Harrow LBC v shah and shah 1999-defendants charge under the National lottery act 1993 section does not include any words indicating that men’s rare is required or any provision for a defence duty. However another section clearly allows a defence inclusion of due to legends defence in subsection 1A section 13 in the section under which the defendants were charge was an important point in the divisional court coming to the decision, that section 13 1C was an offence of strict liability.
Internal
AIDS internal aids matters within the statue itself e.g. the long title short title and the preamble which sets out parliaments purpose in acting that statue some act may have an interpretation section also can use any headings before a group of sections and any schedules attach the act also maybe marginal notes Can also use other sections in the act.
E.g Harrow LBC v shah and shah 1999-defendants charge under the National lottery act 1993 section does not include any words indicating that men’s rare is required or any provision for a defence duty. However another section clearly allows a defence inclusion of due to legends defence in subsection 1A section 13 in the section under which the defendants were charge was an important point in the divisional court coming to the decision, that section 13 1C was an offence of strict liability.
Cheeseman v director of public prosecutions 1990
Was being convicted of ‘wilfully and indecently exposing his person in a street to the annoyance of passengers’
Section 81 of public health acts amendment act 1907 expanded meaning of street to include any place of public resort under the control of the local authority. In 1847 dictionary showed that the word passenger had a meaning of a passer by or through a traveller usually a wayfarer. On a common sense reading passenger had to mean anyone resorting in the ordinary way to a place for one of the purposes for which someone would usually use it. Therefore the two policemen were not passengers as they had been stationed in the public laboratory in order to apprehend persons.
External aids
Outside the act including hands are, law commission reports, dictionaries.
Ex pepper v hart
Black-claws on case
Cheeseman v dpp
Pepper v hart
1993
HOL relaxed the rules that hands are could not be used in court. Agreed Hansard could be used in a limited way. Unusual case as 7 instead of 5 judges heard the appeal. Hansard can only be used where the words of the act are ambiguous or obscure or lead to an absurdity.
Black-clawson
1975 it was accepted that law reform reports could be looked at to discover the mischief or gap in the law.
Impact of eu law
Eu law used the purposive approach
Interpreting national law in the light and the aim of European law has made our judges more ready to use the purposive approach.
Ex marleasing case
Impact of the human rights act 1998
Legislation must be read and given effect in a way that is compatible with the rights in the European convention on human rights.
Ex mendoza v ghaidan
Mendoza v ghaidan 2002
The rent act applied for a person who had the Tennessee of the property died. It allowed unmarried partners to succeed to the tendency as it stated that a person who was living with the original tenant as Hazel her wife or husband shall be treated the spouse of the original tenant. The question was were the same sex partners had the right to take over the tenancy house of law decision made before the human rights act came into affect had the same sex partners did not have the right under the rent act take over the tenancy. The court of appeal held that the rent act had to be interpreted to conform the European convention on human rights which will be discrimination on the ground of gender in order to make the act compatible with human rights. The court appeal read the words living with the original tenant as his or her wife or husband to me, as if they were his or her wife or husband allowed same sex partners have same right as a married opposite sex couples
