Sem 3: Legislation and Judicial Interpretation

Question 1

What are the four rules used in judicial interpretation ?

Answer 1

-Literal Rule
-Golden Rule
-Mischief Rule
-Purposive Approach

Question 2

What rule was used in the case of Fisher v Bell ?

Answer 2

Literal Rule

Question 3

Which court did the case of Fisher v Bell take place in ?

Answer 3

Divisional Court

Question 4

What were the material facts of this case ?

Answer 4

b) A shopkeeper displayed in his shop window a knife of the type commonly known as a “flick knife” with a ticket behind it bearing the words “Ejector knife - 4s.” An information was preferred against him by the police alleging that he had offered the knife for sale contrary to section 1 (1) of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act, 1959.

Question 5

What was the statute and what was the wording of the section under which the defendant was charged in the case of Fisher v Bell ?

Answer 5

s1(1) of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959
It was made illegal to “manufacture, sell or hire or offer for sale or hire, or lend or give to any other person” a flick knife.

Question 6

How was the literal rule was applied in Fisher v Bell ?

Answer 6

They gave the words in the statute their ordinary meaning. The court held that the shopkeeper’s display was an invitation to treat, not an offer to sell, and therefore he could not be convicted.

Question 7

The Divisional Court referred to ways in which the section could have been worded to ensure that the offence in s1(1) covered the situation at Mr Bell’s shop. What were those ways in this case ?

Answer 7

If the draftsman had included a definition of “offer for sale” in the Act of 1959 however, this wasn’t done.

Question 8

What does Lord Parker CJ have to say about who makes the law in the case of Fisher v Bell ?

Answer 8

At first sight it seems absurd that knives of this sort cannot be manufactured, sold, hired, lent or given, but can apparently be displayed in shop windows; but even if this is a casus omissus it is not for the court to supply the omission.

Question 9

What was the outcome of the appeal in the case of Fisher v Bell ?

Answer 9

The defendant in Fisher v Bell was not guilty

Question 10

What rule was applied in the case of Adler v George ?

Answer 10

Golden Rule

Question 11

In which court did the case of Adler v George take place ?

Answer 11

Queen’s Bench Division

Question 12

What was the facts of this case ?

Answer 12

• The defendant, who had obtained access to a Royal Air Force station, a prohibited place within the meaning of the Official Secrets Act, 1920, was within its boundaries when he obstructed a member of Her Majesty’s forces engaged in security duty in relation to the station.
• He was charged with having in the vicinity of a prohibited place obstructed a member of Her Majesty’s forces engaged in security duty in relation to the prohibited place, contrary to section 3 of the Official Secrets Act,1920.

Question 13

What was the statute an section of the act under which the defendant was charged ?

Answer 13

s.3 of the Official Secrets Act 1920

Question 14

How might a literal interpretation have led to an “absurd” result?

Answer 14

The literal rule would have meant that the defendant was not guilty because he was not “in the vicinity” of the base. However, this would have been absurd because someone protesting near the base would be committing an offense, while someone protesting in it would not.

Question 15

How did the court determine that the wording of the section covered the factual situation of the case?

Answer 15

The court applied the golden rule to extend the meaning of the word “vicinity” in the Official Secrets Act 1920 to cover the defendant’s actions.

Question 16

What rule was used in the case of Smith v Hughes ?

Answer 16

Mischief Rule

Question 17

What court did the case of Smith v Hughes take place in ?

Answer 17

Queen Bench’s Division

Question 18

What were the material facts of the case of Smith v Hughes ?

Answer 18

b) Two common prostitutes, standing on a balcony or behind windows in their house, severally solicited men passing in the street by tapping on the balcony rail or windowpane, attracting their attention and inviting them into the house. Information’s were preferred against each prostitute charging that she, being a common prostitute, did solicit in a street for the purpose of prostitution contrary to section 1 (1) of the Street Offences Act, 1959.

Question 19

What was the statute and section under which the defendant was charged ?

Answer 19

s1.1 of the Street Offences Act 1959

Question 20

What was the mischief at which the statute was aimed ?

Answer 20

The harassment of people by prostitutes. The defendants in the case were prostitutes who solicited men from balconies and windows in their homes, and the court applied the mischief rule to convict them.

Question 21

How did the court determine that the wording of the section covered the factual situation of the case?

Answer 21

The court ruled in favour of Mr. Smith, finding that there was a valid contract between the two parties. The court applied an objective test and found that a reasonable person would expect good quality oats in a similar contract, especially since there was no express discussion of old oats. The court also noted that the sample gave Mr. Hughes the opportunity to inspect the oats, which is an example of caveat emptor (buyer beware).

Question 22

What was the rule used in the case of R (on the application of Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health ?

Answer 22

Purposive Approach

Question 23

What does Lord Bingham identify as being problematic with the literal approach as in the case of R (on the application of Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health ?

Answer 23

-Conflation of issues
-Lack of consensus
-Lack of judicial expertise
-Lack of judicial experience
-Interpreting legislation in a way that is constrained by the words, context, and purpose of the statute. Judges must apply the statute, whether they like the policy or not.

Question 24

What dangers does Lord Bingham identify if the court strays too far from interpretation ?

Answer 24

• Legal Certainty- Overly expansive interpretations could lead to legal uncertainty.
• Parliament Intent- Straying too far in interpretation risks disregarding the intentions of Parliament.
• Policy Considerations- Courts should refrain from making decisions that involve broad social implications better suited for legislative debate.
• SOP- Courts should not step beyond their role in interpreting laws into the domain of creating or significantly altering them

Question 25

What is a White Paper ?

Answer 25

A government policy document that outlines proposed legislation or draft bills.

Question 26

Summarise what Lord Steyn says about purposive interpretation.

Answer 26

d) Lord Steyn argues courts should prioritize the law’s purpose, especially when a literal interpretation leads to absurd or unjust outcomes. He believed in a flexible approach to statutory interpretation, considering the broader context and aims of the law to give effect to Parliament’s true intentions.

Question 27

Which Law Lord do both Lords Bingham and Steyn quote as being authoritative in relation to interpretation in this situation?

Answer 27

Lord Wilber Forth

Question 28

Both Lords Bingham and Steyn refer to statutes as always speaking: what do you understand them to mean by this?

Answer 28

This means how a statute can apply to new or changed circumstances even if those circumstances weren’t contemplated.

Question 29

What is the decision of the House of Lords in this case?

Answer 29

The House of Lords affirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision that the Act applied to CNR embryos. The House of Lords also ruled that CNR was not prohibited by the Act, as section 3(3)(d) referred to replacing an embryo, and CNR involved splitting an embryo.