statutory interpretation

Question 1

describe statutory interpretation

Answer 1

• involves the role of judges and their application of acts of parliament in the courts
• the english language is ambiguous, this can lead to many problems
• the three main rules are; the literal rule, the golden rule and the mischief rule
• there is also the purposive approach
• the three main areas which cause judges to need assistance are; a broad term, ambiguity, a drafting error, new developments in the law, changes in the use of language

Question 2

describe the literal rule

Answer 2

• judges will use the ordinary ,literal and natural meaning of a word and apply that to the case, it does not matter if the outcome is absurd
• this rule respects parliamentary sovereignty and provides a consistent approach
• supports the ides that parliament are supreme and therefore only they should be changing the laws

Question 3

describe four cases for the literal rule

Answer 3

• fisher v bell, the restriction of offensive weapons act 1959 was passed to stop the use and sale of flick knives. D was displaying a flick knife in his shop window , it was an offence to ‘sell or offer for sale’. Under the law of contract, displaying somethin gin a shop window was an ‘invitation to treat’ therefore D was not guilty.
• whitely v chappell, an act made it an offence to commit electoral malpractice (vote more than once). it was an offence to ‘impersonate anyone registered to vote. D impersonated a dead person therefore he had not literally committed an offence as dead people are not registered to vote.
• Bentham, the firearms act 1968 states that is an offence to have ‘in your possession a firearm or imitation firearm’. D was imitating a gun with his fingers. The law states that you do not ‘possess’ your own body parts, therefore he was not guilty
• Cheeseman, an act provided an offence of ‘willfully and indecently exposing his person in a street to the annoyance of passengers’. Police officers were stationed in a public bathroom. The police officers were not ‘passengers’ therefore D was not guilty.

Question 4

explain the golden rule with cases

Answer 4

• the golden rule expands the literal rule
• judges look at the literal meaning of a word but they are allowed to avoid an interpretation which could lead to an absurd result by using a wide or narrow approach
• the narrow approach will be used when a word in statute has more than one meaning, the judge may choose the meaning which will provide the best result. In r v allen the wording of s57 of OAPA 1861 had to be given different interpretation for the crime of bigamy because the way it was written literally meant that the crime could never be committed
• the wider application of the golden rule will be used when the meaning of the word/ issue is clear but the judge decides that it would lead to a morally repugnant result. Used in the case of sigsworth when an act stated that if the deceased does not make a will then their next in kin will inherit it. The judge thought it would be a repugnant result to give the son his mothers inheritance as he murdered her. The statute did not mention what to do in such situations so the judge took a wide interpretation and decided that he should not inherit

Question 5

describe thee mischief rule

Answer 5

• established in Heydon’s Case 1584, the mischief rule asks judges to consider four questions, 1. what was the law before the statute? 2. what was wrong with that law? 3. how did parliament intend to correct this? 4. apply this statute in that context.
• gives judges the most flexibility as they are able to ignore the wording of the statute to reach the desired outcome.
• an example is the case of smith v hughes where defendants were charged with ‘soliciting in the street for the purposes of prostitution’, they were soliciting from an upstairs window. Lord Parker used the mischief rule to convict as he believed it was parliaments intention to stop people in the street from being bothered by prostitutes.

Question 6

describe the purposive approach

Answer 6

• goes beyond the mischief rule; the courts aren’t just looking to see the gap in the old law but the intention or ;purpose; of the new act of parliament.
• the judge will often look outside of parliament to see what was intended for/ required by society
• in pepper v hart lord griffiths said tht the courts ‘now adopt a purposive approach which seeks to give effect to the true purpose of legislation’
• In the case of jones, Jones sued his boss for the racial abuse he suffered while workers at the employers factory, claiming that his boss was vicariously liable for the acts done by his employees. The court decided that the purpose of the anti discrimination legislation was to make employers responsible if they allowed racial harassment to occur