Module 4 - Statutory interpretation Flashcards
What is statutory interpretation?
Statutory interpretation is the process by which courts interpret and apply legislation. Judges examine the wording of a statute to understand its meaning, particularly when it is unclear or ambiguous. They use various rules or approaches, such as the literal, golden, and purposive approaches, to clarify the intent of Parliament.
What is the Supreme Court?
The Supreme Court is the highest court in the UK, serving as the final court of appeal for civil and criminal cases. It hears cases of great public or constitutional importance and provides authoritative interpretations of the law. Its decisions set binding precedents for all lower courts.
What is the Court of Appeal?
The Court of Appeal is one level below the Supreme Court and is divided into two divisions: Civil and Criminal. It hears appeals from lower courts, reviewing decisions to ensure they were correctly applied. Its rulings bind lower courts, but it must follow the Supreme Court’s precedents.
What is omission?
In legal terms, omission refers to a failure to act when there is a duty to do so, which can lead to liability in criminal or civil law. For example, failing to provide care for someone under your responsibility can be a criminal omission if it leads to harm.
What is the literal approach?
The literal approach to statutory interpretation involves giving words their plain, ordinary meaning, regardless of whether the result is sensible or not. Judges applying this approach focus strictly on the wording of the statute without considering broader context or purpose.
What is the literal rule?
The literal rule is a rule of statutory interpretation where judges give the words in a statute their plain, ordinary meaning. If the language is clear, no further interpretation is needed, even if the outcome is unreasonable or unjust. This rule prioritises the literal meaning over intent.
What is the purposive approach?
The purposive approach seeks to interpret statutes based on the intended purpose of the legislation, rather than sticking strictly to the literal wording. Judges consider what Parliament intended to achieve when enacting the law, even if this means deviating from the literal meaning of the words.
What is a creative judge?
Creative judges are those who take a more activist role in judicial decision-making, sometimes shaping or extending the law to reflect modern values or perceived justice. They may use approaches like the purposive interpretation to adapt the law to changing societal needs.
What is a conservative judge?
Conservative judges tend to take a more restrained approach to judicial decision-making. They prefer to interpret the law strictly based on the literal wording of statutes or established precedents and avoid making new law or extending interpretations beyond the legislature’s clear intent.
What is judicial precident (stare decisis)?
Judicial precedent, or stare decisis, refers to the principle that lower courts must follow the legal rulings (precedents) of higher courts in similar cases. It ensures consistency and predictability in the law, but higher courts can overturn or distinguish precedents.
What is absurdity?
In statutory interpretation, absurdity refers to an outcome of applying the literal meaning of a statute that is unreasonable, illogical, or contrary to common sense. When a literal interpretation leads to an absurd result, judges may use other interpretative approaches, such as the golden rule.
What is the golden rule?
The golden rule of statutory interpretation allows judges to depart from the literal meaning of a statute if applying the literal rule would lead to an absurd or unjust result. The aim is to give the words a reasonable meaning that avoids absurdity while staying close to their ordinary sense.
What happens when an interpretation has been made on a law by a judge?
It effectively becomes law; all future judges must rule in a similar case in which the initial judge ruled
Why is there a need for statutory intepretation?
- A large percentage of the cases heard by the House of Lords (Supreme Court) and the Court of Appeals involve the meaning of words (i.e. Isle of Wight Council v Platt 2017)
> Words can lead to more than one meaning
> Words can be an imperfect means of communication
> Words can have a broad meaning; seen in Brock v DPP 1993 (meaning of the word ‘type’ in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991)
> May be a drafting error or omission (accident // failure)
> New developments can lead to words not covering present day situations (i.e. Royal College of Nursing v DHSS 1981)
What happened in Cheeseman v DPP (1990)?
- Man exposing himself on the tube
- S.28 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1847 ‘wilfully and indecently exposing his person in a street ot the annoyance of passengers’
- Police officers conducted a sting operation and arrested him; officers were not resorting to that place of public resort ordinarily, but for a special purpose; technically not ‘passengers’
- Using the Oxford Dictionary, court found him not guilty; example of the ‘literal rule’
What were the issues of using the literal rule in Cheeseman v DPP (1990)?
> Defendant was indeed wilfully and indecently exposing his person
Was caught doing it; does it matter if they were passengers?
Was because of previous complaints FROM passengers
Some would argue the purpose of the 1847 Act was to prevent this behaviour
^ This is the purposive approach (takes the purpose of the law into questions; came from Europe as the law is issued in several different languages and may be difficult or impossible to use the literal approach)
What approach do Conservative judges use compared to Creative judges, and give an example of a creative judge.
- Different judges use different rules; Conservative judges prefer to use the literal approach while Creative judges prefer to use the purpose approach (i.e. Lord Denning)
What is ‘like for like’, in terms of judicial precedent?
Once a decision is made it will set a judicial precedent (judge-made law which every judge must follow thereafter; ‘like for like’)
What is the literal rule?
- Takes the words of an Act in plain and ordinary meaning, even if the result is not sensible
What did Lord Esher (Conservative Judge) state about abdursity?
Lord Esher (Conservative Judge) stated ‘if the words of an Act are clear.., you must follow them, even if they lead to a manifest absurdity’; ‘the court has nothing to do with… whether the legislature has committed an absurdity
What happened in Whiteley v Chappell (1868)?
- Defendant was charged under a section which made it an offence to impersonate anyone entitled to vote; D pretended to be a person who had died; Court held that he was not guilty as a dead person is technically not ‘entitled to vote’
- Law was made absurd in this case
What happened in London & North Eastern Railway v Berriman (1946)?
- C’s husband was killed while oiling points on a railway line; compensation only payable if he had been ‘relaying or repairing the line’; House of Lords held it was maintaining, not ‘relaying (putting down track) or repairing’
- Received no compensation
What are the advantages of the Literal approach?
> Follows the rule that Parliament (an elected body) made, not judges
Prevents unelected judges from making law (undemocratic)
Makes law more certain; exact interpretation
People will know what law is and how judges will apply it
What are the disadvantages of the Literal approach?
> Assumes every Act is perfectly drafted
Words do not cover every situation (i.e. Whiteley v Chappell 1868)
Words may have more than one meaning (i.e. D-Dogs Act 1991)
Following the Literal approach may have unjust decisions
What is the golden rule?
- Virtually identical to the Literal rule but avoids absurdity; must follow the literal approach all the way until the end, and if the outcome is absurd, the Golden approach can be applied
What happened in Jones v DPP (1962), in relation to the golden rule and Lord Reid?
i.e. Jones v DPP (1962); Lord Reid argues for a narrow application of the golden rule; ‘If they are capable of more than one meaning, you can choose between those meanings, but beyond that you cannot go’
If there is only one meaning, then it must be taken - if it leads to a distasteful situation, the Golden Rule can modify the words of Parliament
What happened in R v Allen 1872?
- S.57 of OAPA 1861; offence to ‘marry’ whilst one’s original spouse was still alive with no divorce; word ‘marry’ means ‘legally married/go through a ceremony of marriage’; Court decided in OAPA 1861, the word had the second meaning; to choose otherwise would have been absurd; found guilty
What are the advantages of the golden rule?
> If there is issue with the literal rule, the golden rule can be applied
Allows the judge to choose the most sensible meaning of a word in an Act
Provides the most sensible decision in a case
What happened in Re Sigsworth 1935?
- Son had murdered his mother; mother had not made a will, but under the Administration of Justice Act 1925, her son would inherit her estate; no ambiguity in the Act but court unprepared to let a murderer benefit from his crime; Golden Rule applied to prevent him receiving the benefits
