Rules Of Stat Interp Flashcards
What are the 4 rules of statutory interpretation (sí)
Literal rule
Golden rule
Mischief rule
Purposive approach
What is the literal rule?
Giving words their plain, ordinary and grammatical meaning as it appears in dictionary, even if result is absurd
E.g. literal rule
LNER v Berriman (1946)
Railway worker killed whilst oiling track.
Widow unable to claim as only entitled to compensation if they were “relaying or repairing” track
What is the golden rule in its narrow use?
Where a word has two meanings but one produces absurd outcome, so other is chosen
E.g. golden rules, narrow use
R V Allen (1872)
Allen found guilty of bigamy as “marry” should be interpreted to mean going through the ceremony of marriage
What is the golden rule, wide use?
When there is only one literal meaning of a word, which leads to absurd decision, so judge alters meaning of words to avoid it.
E.g. golden rule wide use
R V Sigsworth
Son murdered mother, but was prevent from inheriting mothers estate even though it said “next of kin”
What is the mischief rule?
Where the judge looks back to the gap in the previous law and interprets the Act to cover the gap/mischief it was looking to remedy.
What is the 4 things considered in use of the mischief rule?
i. What was common law before making the act?
ii) what was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide?
iii) what remedy hath Parliament resolved and appointed to cure the disease of the Commonwealth
iv) the office of the judge is to make such constructions as shall suppress the mischief and advance the remedy
E.g. mischief rule
Smith V Hughes (1960)
Words “soliciting in the streets” in Streets Offences Act 1958 we’re held to include soliciting from window of house as Act was made to allow people to pass street without being solicited
What is the purposive approach?
Judge seems to give effect to parliaments intentions when passing a new law. Language should be interpreted in a way that reflects “spirit” of statute.
E.g. purposive approach
Jones v Tower Boot (1997)
COA decided that racial harassment by fellow workers was “in the course of employment” making employer liable.
Parliaments intention was to eliminate racism in workplace
