Statutory Interpretation

Question 1

The courts task in statutory interpretation?

Answer 1

Decide the exact meaning of a particular word or phrase.

Question 2

What is a broad term?

Answer 2

There may be words designed to cover several possibilities, this can lead to problems as to how wide this should go.

Question 3

An example of a broad term that was misinterpreted?

Answer 3

Dangerous dogs act 1991 a phrase ‘any dog of the type known as the pit bull terrier’
In Brock V DPP (1993) this was the key point in dispute and the queens bench divisional court decided that the ‘type’ had a broader meaning than breed.

Question 4

What is ambiguity?

Answer 4

This is where a word has two or more meanings; it may not be clear which meaning should be used.

Question 5

A drafting error?

Answer 5

The parliament counsel who drafted the original bill may have made an error which had not been noticed by parliament. This is likely to occur where the bill is amended several times while going through parliament.

Question 6

New developments

Answer 6

New technology may mean that an old act of parliament does not cover present day situations. This is seen as in the case of Royal College of Nursing V DHSS (1981) where medical science and methods have changed since the passing of the Abortion act in 1967.

Question 7

Changes in the use of language

Answer 7

The meaning of words has changed over the years. This was one of the problems in the case of Cheeseman V DPP (1990)

Question 8

What are the 3 rules that different judges can interpret?

Answer 8

The literal rule
The golden rule
The mischief rule

Question 9

Literal rule definition

Answer 9

A rule of statutory interpretation that gives the words their plain ordinary or dictionary meaning.

Question 10

Whitely V Chappel 1868 (Literal rule)

Answer 10

A defendant was charged under a section which made it an offence to impersonate ‘any person entitled to vote’. The defendant had pretended to be a person whose name was on the voters list but who died. The court held that the defendant was not guilty since a dead person is not in the literal meaning ‘entitled to vote’

Question 11

London & North Eastern Railway V Berriman (1946) (Literal Rule)

Answer 11

Railway worker was killed while doing maintenance work, oiling points along a railway line. His widow tried to claim compensation as there was no look out man provided in accordance with the regulation under the Fatal Accidents Act which stated a look out must be provided for men ‘relaying or repairing’ the track. It was held in the literal meaning that he did neither of these and the claim for compensation failed.

Question 12

Golden rule definition

Answer 12

A rule of statutory interpretation. It is a modification of the literal rule and avoids an interpretation that is absurd.

Question 13

Adler V George (1964) (Golden Rule)

Answer 13

Official Secrets Act 1920 made it an offence to obstruct Her majesty’s forced ‘in the vicinity’ of a prohibited place. Defendants argued they were not guilty of this as they were in the actual prohibited place. The divisional court found the defendants guilty as it would be absurd if they were causing an obstruction not outside but in the prohibited place. The words should be read as ‘in or on the vicinity of’ the prohibited place.

Question 14

Re Sigsworth (1935)

Answer 14

A son had murdered his mother as she did not make a will so this would mean him as the next of kin would inherit this money according to the Administration of Justice Act 1925. There was no ambiguity in the words of the Act but the court was not prepared to let a murderer benefit from his crime, so it was held the literal rule should not apply. The golden rule prevented the son inheriting any money whatsoever as it would have been absurd.

Question 15

Mischief Rule

Answer 15

A rule of statutory interpretation that looks back to the gap in the previous law and interprets the Act so as to cover the gap.

Question 16

Smith V Hughes (1960) (Mischief Rule)

Answer 16

The court considered appeals against the conviction under this section of six different women. In each case the women had not
been ‘in a street’. One had been on a balcony and the others had been at the windows of ground floor rooms, with the window either
half open or closed. In each case the women were attracting the attention of men by calling to them or tapping on the window, but they argued that they were not guilty under this section since they were not literally ‘in a street or public place’. The court decided that they were guilty.

Question 17

Eastbourne Borough Council V Stirling (2000) (mischief rule)

Question 18

Royal college of Nursing V DHSS (1981) (Mischief Rule)

Question 19

Purposive approach

Answer 19

This goes beyond the mischief rule in that the court is not just looking to see what the gap was in the old law. The judges are deciding what they believe Parliament meant to achieve.

Question 20

R V Registrar-General, ex partey Smith (1990)

Question 21

R v Sec of State for Health

Question 22

Adv of purposive approach

Question 23

Disadvantage of purposive approach

Question 24

External aids examples

Answer 24

• previous Acts of Parliament on the same topic
• the historical setting
• earlier case law
• dictionaries of the time
• Hansard – that is the official report of what was said in Parliament when the Act was debated
• reports of law reform bodies such as the Law Commission which led to the passing of the Act
• international conventions, regulations or directives which have been
  implemented by English legislation.

Question 25

Internal aids

Question 26

Eu use of purposive approach

Question 27

Literal rule advantages

Question 28

Literal rule disadvantages

Question 29

Golden rule advantages

Question 30

Golden rule disadvantages

Question 31

Mischief rule advantages

Question 32

Mischief rules disadvantages

Question 33

Purposive approach advantages

Question 34

Purposive approach disadvantages

Question 35

R v Harris

Answer 35

Literal rule