Statutory Interpretation

Question 1

The Literal Rule

Answer 1

• 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.

Question 2

R v Judge of the City of London Court

Answer 2

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’

Question 3

Whitley V Chappell

Answer 3

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.

Question 4

LNER v Berriman

Answer 4

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.

Question 5

Advantages of the Literal Rule

Answer 5

• Gives effect to parliamentary intention

- Produces fair outcomes

Question 6

Disadvantages to the Literal Rule:

Answer 6

• May not give effect to parliamentary intention (Dangerous Dogs Act 1991)
• Creat unfair results (LNER v Berriman)

Question 7

The Golden Rule

Answer 7

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

Question 8

Grey v Pearson

Answer 8

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’.

Question 9

Narrow Approach

Answer 9

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

Question 10

R v Allen

Answer 10

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.

Question 11

Wider approach

Answer 11

• 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

Question 12

ReSigsworth

Answer 12

…

Question 13

Advantages of the Golden Rule

Answer 13

…

Question 14

Disadvantages of the Golden Rule

Answer 14

…

Question 15

The Mischief Rule

Answer 15

• 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

Question 16

Heydons Case: 4 may points for the courts to consider

Answer 16

1. What was the common law before the making of an Act?
2. What was the mischief for which the common law did not provide?
3. What was the remedy that Parliament. Hath resolved?
4. What is the true reason of the remedy?

Question 17

Smith v Hughes

Answer 17

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:

Question 18

..

Answer 18

..

Question 19

..

Answer 19

..

Question 20

..

Answer 20

..

Question 21

The purposive approach

Answer 21

• 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

Question 22

R v Registrar-general ex parte Smith

Answer 22

• According to s51 of the Adoption Act 1976 a person who had been adopted could