Rules of interpretation

Question 1

Literal rule

Answer 1

plain, ordinary, literal meaning even if it leads to a manifest obsurdity

Question 2

Literal rule case 1 and brief facts

Answer 2

LNER v Berriman:
railway worker was oiling track, no lookout and train hit him
Act said if there is someone relaying or repairing they get a lookout, oiling was maintaining

Question 3

Literal rule case 2 and brief facts

Answer 3

DPP v Cheeseman:
man who masturbated in a public toilet
was caught multiple times and police were alerted
they waited for him and caught him
Act said about a street and passenger, street applied passenger did not as they waited were not passing through

Question 4

Golden rule

Answer 4

if literal would produce an absurd decision then court could use golden rule

Question 5

Narrow approach

Answer 5

more than one meaning choose the words best suited

Question 6

Narrow approach case and facts

Answer 6

R v Allen:
married to one person, then proceeded to marry another
used ‘marry’ as a ceremony instead of a legal binding because that wasn’t possible

Question 7

Broad approach

Answer 7

court can modify the word to solve the issue

Question 8

Broad approach case and facts

Answer 8

Adler v George:
protestor stopped an RAF pilot landing
added ‘in or’ to ‘vicinity of a prohibited place’

Question 9

Mischief rule

Answer 9

what mischief/issue parliament were trying to stop

Question 10

Mischief rule case 1 and case facts

Answer 10

Smith v Hughes:
prostitutes were harassing people from balconies, windows and doors
was to stop prostitutes harassing passers by so were guilty

Question 11

Mischief rule case 2 and case facts

Answer 11

Royal College of Nursing (RCN) v DHSS:
required a doctor to do the new abortion technique, nut it was to stop backstreet abortions so nurses were allowed to do so

Question 12

Purposive approach

Answer 12

What parliament aimed to achieve and stop

Question 13

Purposive approach case 1 and case facts

Answer 13

Jones v TBC:
Jones was racially abused verbally and physically but Act said only if they were still employed but it was to promote equality and reduce racism so they were guilty

Question 14

Purposive approach case 2 and case facts

Answer 14

R v RG ex parte smith:
wanted adoption documents, but previously killed someone he thought was his step mum in jail, act was to help get families back together not create violence from it, so was not given documents