Statutory Interpretation Flashcards
The Literal Rule
- Gives the word in An Act their plain, literal, dictionary meaning
- Judges will strictly follow the wording of Parliament.
- An older Act of Parliament is being interpreted, a judge will use a literal definition of the terms at the time the Act was passed.
R v Judge of the City of London Court
Lord Esher: ‘if the words of an act are clear you must follow them even if they lead to a manifest absurdity. The court has nothing to do with the question whether the legislature has committed an absurdity’
Whitley V Chappell
Fact: D was charged with impersonating any Perron entitled to vote
- D impersonated some-one on the voters list but they were dead
Held: the judge used a literal interpretation and found that the defendant was not guilty, technically the deceased was no longer entitled to vote.
LNER v Berriman
Facts: widow of a railway worker was seeking compensation for her husband’s death after he was killed whilst oiling points on the railway tracks without a look-out.
-Relevant statute stated = a look-out should be provided for workers who were relaying or repairing the track.
Held: the judge used a literal interpretation and concluded that the widow was unable to claim compensation. The railway company was not expected to provide a look-out, technically oiling the points counted as maintenance as opposed to relaying or repairing, there was no look-out as there was no statutory obligation upon the company to provide one.
Advantages of the Literal Rule
- Gives effect to parliamentary intention
- Produces fair outcomes
Disadvantages to the Literal Rule:
- May not give effect to parliamentary intention (Dangerous Dogs Act 1991)
- Creat unfair results (LNER v Berriman)
The Golden Rule
Looks at the literal meaning of the words, if it produces an absurd result they will substitute an alternative non-absurd meaning by using the golden rule
Grey v Pearson
Lord Wensleydale: ‘the ordinary sense of the words is to be adhered to, unless it would lead to absurdity, when the ordinary sense may be modified to avoid the absurdity but no further’.
Narrow Approach
Where a word/phrase is ambiguous (has 2 or more meanings)
Allows a judge to choose between 2 possible meanings of the ambiguous word/phrase to produce a just result
R v Allen
Facts: the defendant was charged with ‘bigamy’ an offence defined as to ‘marry’ whilst already ‘married’
- The word ‘marry’ had two meanings within this context (1) become legally married to another OR (2) taking part in a marriage ceremony to another.
- it is impossible to legally marry when married
Held: using the narrow approach of the golden rule the court applied the alternative meaning of the word ‘marry’ to find the defendant guilty of committing the offence.
Wider approach
- Where words in a statute only have one meaning, there is no ambiguity but this will clearly lead to an absurdity
- The Court will use the wider rule to modify or change the mean to prevent the absurdity occurring
ReSigsworth
…
Advantages of the Golden Rule
…
Disadvantages of the Golden Rule
…
The Mischief Rule
- Judges use this rule to consider the law before the passing of the Act of Parliament. In order to discover the mischief, the ‘gap’ in the law that Parliament were intending to cover.
- Having identified the gap in the law that Parl. Had intended to fill, the ‘mischief’ that they are intending to prevent
- The Judge will then interpret that Act in a way that the ‘mischief’ is criminalised or the gap is covered
Heydons Case: 4 may points for the courts to consider
- What was the common law before the making of an Act?
- What was the mischief for which the common law did not provide?
- What was the remedy that Parliament. Hath resolved?
- What is the true reason of the remedy?
Smith v Hughes
Facts: an offence to solicit ‘in the street or public place’. Prostitutes in this case were soliciting from a balcony and through to windows of their homes
Held:
..
..
..
..
..
..
The purposive approach
- A more modern version of the mischief rule, the judge will however look beyond the ‘gap in the law’
- Judges using this approach identify the purpose/object of the act and interpret any ambiguous / unclear provisions in accordance with that’s purpose
- Judge is seeking to identify and. Give effect to Parls. Intention upon passing the Act when interpreting the Act
- It allows the judge to go beyond the wording of the statute in order to give effect to their (Parliament) intentions
R v Registrar-general ex parte Smith
- According to s51 of the Adoption Act 1976 a person who had been adopted could
