Stat Interp Flashcards
Define the literal rule
When judges apply the plain, ordinary and literal meaning of the words contained in a statute. They apply the words exactly as they are written, according to Lord Escher, this should be done even if it leads to a ‘manifest absurdity’.
Give the first literal rule case + facts
LNER v Berriman - oiling tracks with no lookout, Fatal Accidents Act, ‘repairing or relaying’, maintenance didn’t count, literal rule meant not liable
Give the second literal rule case + facts
DPP v Cheeseman - D masturbated in public toilet, charged with exposing to passengers in street, Town Police Clauses Act, toilet counted as street but passengers was defined in 1847 dictionary as ‘using a street for ordinary purposes’, police did not count so D found not guilty
Give the advantages of the literal rule
Creates certainty (DPP v Cheeseman) Easy to use and saves time (DPP v Cheeseman) Parliamentary Supremacy (LNER v Berriman - stuck to strict meaning not what wasn't specified) Separation of powers (DPP v Cheeseman - judge took dictionary definition)
Define the golden rule
When using the golden rule, judges begin by using the plain dictionary meaning of the words in a statute, but if this would lead to an absurd result, judges can either choose between possible meanings of the words (narrow approach) or invent a new meaning to avoid absurdity (broad approach)
Give the narrow approach case + facts
R v Allen - man tried to marry again before divorce, charged with bigamy under OAPA, ‘marry’ could mean either ‘legally marry’ or ‘go through ceremony’, they chose the latter so that it was possible to commit the crime
Give the broad approach + facts
Re Sigsworth - defendant killed mother to gain inheritance, Administration of Estates Act, inheritance to next of kin when no will, court said it would be absurd for D to gain from murder, so assumed wording meant ‘unless D killed deceased’. He did not get the inheritance.
Give the advantages of the golden rule
Avoids absurd decisions (R v Allen)
Achieves Parliament’s true intentions (Re Sigsworth)
Applicable to alternative meanings (R v Allen)
Allows for judicial creativity (Re Sigsworth)
Define the mischief rule
The mischief rule looks at the problem that Parliament aimed to stop, and interprets the act to stop it. This allows judges to look past the literal meanings of words. In Heydon’s Case, the court established that 4 questions must be asked when using this rule, two of which are: what was the common law before the act? and what mischief was the law not addressing?
Give case 1 of the mischief rule + facts
Smith v Hughes - prostitutes on balcony charged with soliciting prostitution in a public place under Street Offences Act. if literal rule was used then acquitted as not in street. the court decided the mischief parliament wanted to stop was prostitutes harassing passengers therefore they were found guilty
Give case 2 of the mischief rule + facts
RCN v DHSS - nurses were helping to perform abortions but only registered medical practitioners could (Abortion Act) which was only doctors at the time. the court decided the mischief parliament wanted to stop was back street abortions and so (due to scientific advancements) decided nurses could also aid with abortions safely. Note: two judges wanted to use literal rule and said others were redrafting legislation.
Give the advantages of the mischief rule
Avoids absurd decisions (Smith v Hughes)
Allows for Parliament’s true intentions to be met (Smith v Hughes)
Allows for judicial creativity (Smith v Hughes)
Promote flexibility in the law (RCN v DHSS)
Give the disadvantages of the literal rule
Leads to absurd decisions (LNER v Berriman)
Multiple meanings difficult to apply (R v Allen)
Assumes impossible perfection in drafting (LNER v Berriman)
No room for judicial creativity (LNER v Berriman)
Give the disadvantages of the golden rule
Creates uncertainty (Re Sigsworth)
Goes against Parliamentary supremacy (Re Sigsworth)
Narrow approach is inflexible (Re Sigsworth)
Doesn’t respect separation of powers (Re Sigsworth)
Give the disadvantages of the mischief rule
Creates uncertainty (RCN v DHSS)
Goes against Parliamentary supremacy (RCN v DHSS - two judges said they were re-drafting leg.)
Limited to fixing one problem (ex parte Smith)
Goes against separation of powers (Smith v Hughes - judges made it illegal to solicit from a private place)
Define the purposive approach
The purposive approach requires judges to look at what Parliament intended when making an act and put that intention into effect. Lord Denning says that judges can look beyond the wording of the act and ‘read between the lines’ to find parliament’s intention. This means judges have broad powers of interpretation and aren’t strictly bound by the wording, going beyond other rules of interpretation.
Give the advantages of the purposive approach
Avoids absurd decisions (Jones v TBC)
Achieves Parliament’s true intentions (Jones v TBC)
Allows for judicial creativity (Jones v TBC) - judges can change the law to conform with the purpose
Promotes flexibility in the law (RCN v DHSS)
Give the disadvantages of the purposive approach
Creates uncertainty (ex parte Smith)
Goes against Parliamentary supremacy (ex parte Smith)
Goes against separation of powers (Jones v TBC)
Makes judges too powerful - no guidelines (R v Clinton)
Define intrinsic aids + give 3 examples
Intrinstic aids are found within the act itself.
Eg: Short titles, definition sections, marginal notes
Define extrinsic aids + give 4 examples
Extrinsic aids are found outside of the statute itself.
Eg: Hansard, dictionaries, Law reform reports, the Interpretation Act
What are short titles? + case
Contain name of act and date passed, tells judge what about + helps differentiate (e.g. theft act 68 & 78). also helps know which dictionary to use (DPP v Cheeseman)
What are definition sections? + case
Section of act defines key words. Parliament can specify what they meant (multiple meanings/diff to dictionary). E.g. Oxford v Moss, definition section of property section of Theft Act used to decide info couldn’t be stolen.
What are marginal notes? + case
Written in the margin of acts, gives a summary and how to use the act. Montilla showed these don’t need to be used, but should be trustworthy (written by Parliamentary Counsel Office)
What is Hansard? + case
Record of Parliament debates, used to figure out their intentions (for mischief/purposive). Pepper v Hart allows Hansard to be used under 3 conditions: words of act are ambiguous, minister in charge of act made statement about these words, statement clears up ambiguity
Use of dictionaries + case
Helpful when using literal rule, judges find Oxford dictionary from date of act to figure out meaning of key words. DPP v Cheeseman, dictionary used to find meaning of ‘passenger’ (give case facts)
What is Law Reform Report? + case
Written by Law Commission to explain problems with old law, judges use to see the mischief. DPP v Bull, prostitutes charged under Street Offences Act. Report before said female prostitutes were the problem so judges didn’t find male prostitutes guilty
What is the Interpretation Act?
Gives guidance on how to interpret other statutes. For example, any mention of the word ‘he’ should also include ‘she’, and any singular word includes plurals
What has happened since joining the EU? (Marleasing)
Since joining the EU, judges in the UK must interpret UK acts to respect the wording of EU laws, as was made clear in Marleasing. This is no longer the case since we have left. The EU also favour the purposive approach and the UK started using it more due to EU influence, this will likely remain the case.
When asked to explain the impact of EU law what should you do?
Talk about Marleasing, explain the purposive approach and give a purposive approach case
What is the impact of European law on the UK?
Marleasing (UK must interpret UK acts to respect EU laws) + the UK must abide by the ECHR. The Human Rights Act is used to handle UK cases involving the ECHR, judges have to interpret legislation to make it compatible if possible. In Mendoza v Ghaidan, the Rent Act said tenancy went to unmarried spouses. Same sex marriage wasn’t legal at the time and Mendoza claimed this was gender discrimination, court decided it breached human rights not to give Mendoza tenancy and allow the act to apply to same sex couples as well
What happens if it isn’t possible to interpret the act and solve the problem in EU/European Law?
Judges must make a ‘declaration of incompatibility’, Parliament are supreme so this doesn’t actually change the law but just alerts them.
What are the advantages of precedent?
Creates certainty in the law
Precedent is fairly flexible
Responds to real situations
Allows for judicial creativity
Explain creating certainty in the law as an advantage of precedent + cases
Based on ‘stare decisis’ meaning the same decision will always be made by lower courts, higher courts also rarely overrule themselves. For example, Jones v SoSSS wouldn’t overrule Re Dowling to maintain certainty
Explain precedent being flexible as an advantage of precedent + cases
Several ways of avoiding precedent if bad decision made. Higher courts can overrule/reverse and any court can distinguish. For example, R v Shivpuri overruled Anderton v Ryan because a serious error was made that needed correcting fast.
Explain responding to real situations as an advantage of precedent + case
Based on case law which deals with real situations rather than hypotheticals. For example in R v R, husband tried to have unconsensual sex with wife, society no longer deemed this acceptable so court made marital rape a crime.
Explain allowing for judicial creativity as an advantage of precedent + case
Courts can distinguish if an existing law doesn’t apply to current facts or create a law with original precedent. E.g. parliament gave no guidance about marital rape so judges made it illegal in R v R. This leads to justice and saves Parliament time.
