Statutory Interpretation

Question 1

Literal Rule

Answer 1

Words are given their plain, ordinary, grammatical meaning regardless of the outcome

Question 2

R v Judge of City of London Court

Answer 2

’..if the words of an act are clear, you must follow them, even though they lead to a manifest absurdity (…) the court has nothing to do wtih the question of whether the legislature has committed an absurdity.’

Words are given their plain, grammatical meaning regardless of the outcome

Question 3

Whiteley v Chappell

Answer 3

Dead person not entitled to vote so D not guilty - this is an ABSURD OUTCOME

Question 4

LNER v Berriman

Answer 4

Taken literally oiling track is neither relaying nor repairing but maintaining so widow not entitled to compensation - UNJUST OUTCOME

Question 5

Golden Rule

Answer 5

The literal rule should be followed unless it would lead to an absurd decision which parliament would not have intended - ‘safety valve’

Question 6

Becke v Smith (GR)

Answer 6

‘that the words of an Act should be taken literally but they can be modified or varied to avoid inconsistency with the Act or repugnant outcome’

Question 7

Grey v Pearson (GR)

Answer 7

‘the grammatical and ordinary sense of the word is to be adhered to unless that would lead to some absurdity… in which case the… words may be modified, so as to avoid that absurdity…’

Question 8

Narrow View - Jones v DPP

Answer 8

where a word or words have two possible meanings but one would produce an unwanted/absurd outcome the court may choose between them

Question 9

R v Allen

Answer 9

Using golden rule, meaning of the words marry again was modified to mean going through the ceremony. As a result Allen was found guilty.

Question 10

Wide View

Answer 10

where the words have only one clear meaning but their literal meaning would lead to a repugnant situation, the court will use the golden rule to change the words of the statute to avoid the problem.

Question 11

Re Sigsworth

Answer 11

Court changed the words of the statute so that those who have killed may not inherit from them.

Question 12

Mischief Rule

Answer 12

Court looks at the gap in the law that Parliament had felt necessary to fill by passing the Act. It then interprets the Act to fill that gap and to remedy the mischief that Parliament had been aiming to remedy

Question 13

Heydon’s Case

Answer 13

AKA Mischief Rule

Four things must be considered by the courts:

1. What was the common law before making of Act?
2. What was the mischief/defect for which the law did not provide?
3. What was the remedy that Parliament resolved?
4. The true reason for such remedy

Question 14

Smith v Hughes

Answer 14

Parliaments intention to resolve pestering in the streets. Although not in the street, prostitutes could be seen from the street so were guilty.

Question 15

Royal College of Nursing v DHSS

Answer 15

Court decided mischief Parliament seeking to fix was backstreet abortions and so held nurses were not contributing to the mischief

Question 16

Purposive Approach

Answer 16

Approach allows judges to look at aims of the Act in the current social context, thus enabling them to develop the law to meet Parliament’s intentions as perceived today.

Question 17

Magor & St Mellons v Newport Corporation

Answer 17

‘we sit here to find out the intention of Parliament & ministers and carry it out… we do this better by filling in the gaps & making sense of the enactment than by opening it up to destructive analysis’ (Lord Denning)

Question 18

Jones v Tower Boot Co

Answer 18

As purpose of act was to remove discrimination at workplace, employer should be held responsible as they alone could establish an environment of racial equality.

Question 19

R v Registrar General - Ex Parte Smith

Answer 19

Positive purpose of the Act was to create closer family relationships; Parliament could not have possibly intended to put the biological mother at risk.

Question 20

Literal Rule Advantages

Answer 20

• Follows exact words used by Parliament which is democratically elected; thus upholding the separation of powers as role of judiciary is to apply law and role of Parliament is to make it
• Creates certainty in our legal principles which allows lawyers to advise clients with accuracy and cases can be settled if appropriate, thus
  upholding the rule of law that it should be certain

Question 21

Literal Rule Disadvantages

Answer 21

• Assumes every Act of Parliament is perfectly drafted and acceptable to interpret literally. If poorly drafted/contains errors judges may lack flexibility for right decision and this can lead to absurd outcomes (Whiteley v Chappell)
• Leads to unjust outcomes if literal meaning is applied regardless of consequences, leading to outcomes such as LNER v Berriman thus the injustice can damage public confidence in judiciary and judicial system.

Question 22

Golden Rule Advantages

Answer 22

• Respects exact words of Parliament except in limited situations & so avoids judges making law to any great extent only if literal approach leads to a manifest absurdity thus upholding parliamentary sovereignty where possible
• Provides escape route from harsh/absurd outcomes of literal rule, giving judges the flexibility to avoid obviously unjust outcomes (Re Sigsworth) thus preserving public confidence in the law

Question 23

Golden Rule Disadvantages

Answer 23

• Only used in exceptional circumstances where manifest absurdity would occur, so harsh outcomes are not necessarily dealt with such as in LNER v Berriman, thus is not a very effective ‘safety value’ to curb injustices of literal rule
  > Michael Zander then refers to this as a ‘feeble parachute’
• Judges go beyond constitutional role of interpreting the law such as in Re Sigsworth; argued that when judges insert a new word/phrase into a statute not written by Parliament they are then effectively adopting Parliament’s powers, thus contrary to the separation of powers

Question 24

Mischief Rule advantages

Answer 24

• Produces more just outcomes than literal, however if this is attempted in every case the law will become uncertain; contrary to the rule of law
• Promotes aim of the law so Parliament’s wishes are more likely to be achieved such as in RCN v DHSS, thus upholding parliamentary sovereignty

Question 25

Mischief Rule Disadvantages

Answer 25

• Leads to judicial law making as judges take own view of Parliament’s intentions, thus contrary to the separation of powers as judges should only interpret & apply law
• Impossible to know when judges will use & also the results, leading to uncertainty and making it difficult to advise clients on potential outcomes, thus contrary to the rule of law that law should be ascertainable.

Question 26

Purposive Approach Advantages

Answer 26

• Leads to justice in individual cases as purpose of law taken into account so judges can cover more situations than if taken literally. So, approach can give effect to true intentions of Parliament, thus upholding Parliamentary Sovereignty
• Gives judges more discretion when interpreting statutes allowing them to avoid absurd outcomes such as in Whiteley v Chappell thus upholding public confidence in judiciary & judicial system

Question 27

Purposive Approach Disadvantages

Answer 27

• Difficult to find Parliament’s true intentions making it hard to apply them to statute; many argue that Hansard is not always reliable & at times confusing, plus the only reliable way is to look at the statute itself; so unelected judges are making the law thus contrary to Parliamentary Sovereignty
• Difficult to determine outcome of a case as depends on judges opinion of purpose of Act; making it difficult for lawyers to advise clients on potential outcomes thus creating uncertainty which is contrary to the rule of law

Question 28

Extrinsic Aids

Answer 28

1. HANSARD
   Pepper v Hart
   - Official record of Parliamentary Debates; as the statements in Hansard are made by the minister/sponsor of the Bill, they are clear and may clarify Parliament’s intention in legislating, thus the meaning of the words in context
   - P v H permits judges to refer to debate where words of an Act are unclear, ambiguous or absurd
2. OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY
   Vaughan v Vaughan
   - Same dictionary used by all judges to ensure consistency
   - Judge would need to use dictionary published in the same year as Act passed to find the ‘plain, ordinary & natural’ meaning of words as they were then used

Question 29

Intrinsic Aids

Answer 29

1. PREAMBLE
   Theft Act 1968
   - Older Acts contain introduction, setting out the purpose & meaning of the Act
2. EXPLANATORY NOTES
   Climate Change & SE Act 2006
   - elaborate on meaning of words used in act
3. SCHEDULES
   s2 Hunting Act 2004
   - additions to the act referred to in main provisions to clarify those provisions