Statutory Interpretation Flashcards
Describe and illustrate the Literal Rule.
It is a Victorian approach when judges use the plain, ordinary meaning of the words used in a statute even if the result is not sensible.
This approach is heavily criticized as it has led to injustice in cases.
This is the most common rule of interpretation and the least controversial.
Whiteley v Chapel:
A statute made it illegal to ‘impersonate any person entitled to vote’. The defendant used the identity of a dead person. They were held not guilty as under the literal rule the dead person was not ‘entitled to vote’.
LNER v Berriman:
A railway worker was killed whilst doing maintenance and his wife tried to claim compensation under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976. The claim failed as the Act stated that compensation only applied to accidents that occurred when ‘repairing or relaying’ the track.
What happened in Whiteley v Chapel?
A statute made it illegal to ‘impersonate any person entitled to vote’. The defendant used the identity of a dead person. They were held not guilty as under the literal rule the dead person was not ‘entitled to vote’.
What happened in LNER v Berriman?
A railway worker was killed whilst doing maintenance and his wife tried to claim compensation under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976. The claim failed as the Act stated that compensation only applied to accidents that occurred when ‘repairing or relaying’ the track.
Describe and illustrate the Golden Rule.
The judge would begin with the literal interpretation unless it would lead to an unjust or absurd result.
They then apply one of the two-
- Narrow Application- When the word used in the act is ambiguous (having more than one meaning) the court may choose and apply a meaning.
eg. R v Allen-
Under the Offences against the Person Act 1861 it is an offence to commit bigamy. The court applied the narrow application of the golden rule as the word ‘marry’ should be interpreted as a ceremony, so the defendant’s conviction was upheld. - Wide Application- When the words are clear but would lead to injustice or absurdity so they may be altered within the context of the Act.
eg. Sigsworth-
A man murdered his mother in order to inherit her estate. The law stated that the ‘next of kin should receive all assets’ but this would lead to the man benefiting from his crime, so the court used the wide application.
What happened in R v Allen?
Under the Offences against the Person Act 1861 it is an offence to commit bigamy. The court applied the narrow application of the golden rule as the word ‘marry’ should be interpreted as a ceremony, so the defendant’s conviction was upheld.
What happened in the case of Sigsworth?
A man murdered his mother in order to inherit her estate. The law stated that the ‘next of kin should receive all assets’ but this would lead to the man benefiting from his crime, so the court used the wide application.
Describe and illustrate the mischief rule.
This rule is applied when the act in question reformed a previous piece of law.
The rule was made in Heydon’s case 1584 and stated that when using this rule, you must consider:
What was the law that was reformed by the act?
What was the mischief of this law?
What was the remedy parliament tried to provide in the reformed act?
The court should then interpret the Act in a way that the mischief is covered, and a remedy provided.
The mischief rule often relies on extrinsic aids.
The Law Commission described it as ‘a rather more satisfactory approach.’
In Smith v Hughes:
A prostitute was soliciting from a window. The Street Offences Act 1959 made it illegal to solicit on the ‘street’ however in the end she was still held guilty as she was causing the same mischief parliament tried to put an end to in the act.
In Royal College of Nursing v DHSS:
Drugs were developed that allowed nurses to conduct abortions. The Abortion Act 1967 states that only ‘a registered medical practitioner’ may carry out the termination of a pregnancy. In the end, it was held legal for nurses to use the drug as the mischief parliament was aiming to stop was illegal abortions by unprofessionals.
How was the mischief rule made?
The rule was made in Heydon’s case 1584 and stated that when using this rule, you must consider:
What was the law that was reformed by the act?
What was the mischief of this law?
What was the remedy parliament tried to provide in the reformed act?
The court should then interpret the Act in a way that the mischief is covered, and a remedy provided.
What happened in Smith v Hughes?
In Smith v Hughes:
A prostitute was soliciting from a window. The Street Offences Act 1959 made it illegal to solicit on the ‘street’ however in the end she was still held guilty as she was causing the same mischief parliament tried to put an end to in the act.
What happened in Royal College of Nursing v DHSS?
In Royal College of Nursing v DHSS:
Drugs were developed that allowed nurses to conduct abortions. The Abortion Act 1967 states that only ‘a registered medical practitioner’ may carry out the termination of a pregnancy. In the end, it was held legal for nurses to use the drug as the mischief parliament was aiming to stop was illegal abortions by unprofessionals.
Describe the purposive approach.
Judges will look at the purpose of the act / what parliament wanted to achieve.
It is a modern-day approach. It takes a broader approach than the mischief rule as it is not limited to reformed acts.
In Registrar General ex parte Smith:
The law stated that any person was entitled to their birth certificate. The defendant intended to kill his mother once he had the birth certificate, so he was refused access to it as it wasn’t parliament’s intention to allow this to happen under the Act.
In Jones v Tower Boot:
Mr. Jones suffered from racial harassment from co-workers whilst working at a factory. He left the job and attempted to sue the employer under the Race Relations Act. It was argued if the racial abuse occurred during the ‘Course of Employment’. In the end Mr. Jones won his claim as it was parliaments intent to stop racial discrimination.
What happened in Registrar General ex parte Smith?
The law stated that any person was entitled to their birth certificate. The defendant intended to kill his mother once he had the birth certificate, so he was refused access to it as it wasn’t parliament’s intention to allow this to happen under the Act.
What happened in Jones v Tower Boot?
Mr. Jones suffered from racial harassment from co-workers whilst working at a factory. He left the job and attempted to sue the employer under the Race Relations Act. It was argued if the racial abuse occurred during the ‘Course of Employment’. In the end Mr. Jones won his claim as it was parliaments intent to stop racial discrimination.
What are the disadvantages of the mischief rule?
One disadvantage is that the mischief rule is limited due to the purposive approach. This is because the purposive approach is really similar but isn’t limited to just reformed acts. Additionally, due to this it is more popular as it goes further in looking for parliament’s intent.
Another disadvantage is that it creates uncertainty in law. This is because it is up to the judge to decide how to interpret the mischief and remedy in the Act therefore the outcome isn’t predictable. Furthermore, since this is dependent on the judge, lawyers cannot properly advise clients.
