LA2: Statutory Interpretation Flashcards
Literal Rule:
Meaning
Judge gives words in the statute their ordinary and natural meaning.
Literal Rule:
Example
R v Bentham
D charged wih possession of imitation firearm for use in robbery.
He put fingers in pocket to look like gun.
Firearms Act 1968- ‘anything which has the appearance of being a firearm’
Guilty- literal meaning of ‘appearance’
Literal Rule:
Advantages
Disadvantages
Advantages
- Makes judges “Interpreters” rather than “Law Makers”, uphold seperation of powers.
- Makes law more predictable if judges stick to literal meaning, law is made more stable.
- Will force Parliament to amend Acts if judges give unintended meaning.
Disadvantages
- It can lead to absurd results that Parliament have to correct.
- It doesn’t take into account that words change meaning over time, Parliament may have left gaps in Act so judges can adapt the law as needed.
- Law Commission says the judges are relying on the wording being perfect, which is ‘unatainable’.
Golden Rule:
Meaning
Can only be used if Literal Rule fails to give solution.
Judge may find a second meaning for words to avoid absurdity.
Two Aproaches:
Narrow- give words another meaning
Broad- Do what you can to avoid absurdity
Golden Rule:
Example
Broad
Re Sigsworth 1935
Son murders mother. She didn’t leave a will, meaning her murderer son would inherit all her estates.
Judges used broad approach because it would be wrong for him to benefit from crime.
Didn’t allow him to inherit.
Golden Rule:
Advantages
Disadvantages
Advantages
- Means judge can adapt law to new problems.
- Judges can correct faults that weren’t seen by Parliament.
- Prevents absurdity.
Disadvantages
- Causes uncertainty becaus it is erratic, lawyers cannot advise clients properly if judges can just construct a meaning.
- judge is using own opinion. Goes against rules of the constitution.
- judges view will differ on what is ‘absurd’
Mischief Rule:
Meaning
Judge looks at what DEFECT parliament was trying to REMEDY.
Asks themselves four questions:
What was law before statute?
What was the problem it was made to remedy?
What was the remedy provided?
What was the ‘real’ reason for the remedy?
Mischief Rule:
Example
Davis v Johnson 1976
Domestic violence case, woman applies for injunction to keep boyfriend away from their shared home.
She got injunction but he appealed because the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Causes Act 1976 said wives could gain injunctions. They weren’t married.
Defect was Abuse in home, Remedy was injunction so in order to remedy the same defct, the girlfriend was allowed to keep the injunction and the appeal wasn’t held.
Mischief Rule:
Advantages
Disadvantages
Advantages
- Justifies going ‘behind’ the actual wording and considering the problem Parliament was trying to correct.
- Gives more discretion and creativity to judge than Literal or Golden.
- Allows the law to develop and adapt to changing needs and society.
Disadvantages
- Gives judges a law making role, going against the doctrine & seperation of powers.
- Judges must only look within the act itself, cannot look at Parliament notes to go with it or any other extrinsic materials.
- Only looks at defect in law, not what Parliament may have intended.
Purposive Approach:
Meaning
Example
Goes beyond Mischief Rule
Looks to the intention of Parliament.
Example
Jones v Tower Boot Co. 1997:
Claimant sued for racial discrimination in workplace, employer said not liable because abuse wasn’t carried out in ‘Course of Employment’.
Found Liable because the intention of Parliament was to stop all racial discrimination and abuse in workplace in general, not just in the ‘Course of Employment’.
Purposive Approach:
Human Rights Act 1998
Section 3 and 4:
UK laws must comply with EU Human Rights. The purpose of the Act is to uphold Human Rights.
Judges must make the Act compatible or they must use S4 to declare incompatibility.
Current Approach to complying with HRA:
- Consider whether law is incompatible with HRA.
- Consider whether ‘normal’ interpretation rules can be used to rectify incompatibility e.g. literal/golden
- If these approaches fail, must use S3 in most creative fashion to avoid using S4.
- If S3 changes a fundemenatl aspect of the law, then use S4 to make Declaration of Incompatibility.
Example
Nicholson v Grainger plc. 2009
fired for refusing to use company car for visits because Nicholson firm believer of climate change. Sued for going against human right to freedom of thought. Employers liable because the purpose of human rights is to protect Nicholson’s beliefs.
Purposive Approach:
EU Laws
UK must follow EU laws, any UK law contradicting them will be ignored.
Judges can use purposive approach to interpret EU laws.
Article 267 Treaty on the Functioning of European Union (TEFU) means we can ask ECJ for an interpretation on EU law. UK courts can apply the law according to this if they want to, which is known as a Preliminary Ruling.
Example
Marshall v Southampton & SW Hampshire AHA 1986:
Marshall fired because retirment age was 60, but for men it was 65. She sued for gender discrimination. Judges unsure on which law to follow (because particular EU law wasn’t implemented in Uk at the time) the judge asked for intepretation. It took 11 years for it to come back from ECJ so Marshall eventually got 5 years pay and interest in damages.
