Statutory Interpretation Flashcards
Statutory Interpretation
How acts of Parliament are interpreted by judges
Literal Rule
• The plain, literal, ordinary, dictionary definition from the Oxford english dictionary from the time the act was passed
• Supported by Lord Esher
Literal Rule - Cheeseman v DPP (1990)
• s28 Town AND Police Causes Act 1847
• “It is an offence to willingly and indecently expose one’s person in a street to the annoyance of passengers”
- from the dictionary 1847, “passengers” meaning “passers by”
• Mr Cheeseman was caught by 2 police officers carrying out indecent acts upon himself in a public lavatory
• The officers had been stationed there following complaints
• As the police were stationed there, they were not passers by so Mr Cheeseman was found not guilty
Literal Rule - R v Bassett (2008)
• D drilled a hole in the changing room at some swimming pools and filmed men undressing (it was at the height to see their chests)
• He was convicted at first instance and appealed
• Sexual offences act 2003 s68(1)(a)
• contains the offence of ‘voyeurism’
• A private act which involved parts of the body which people would normally expect privacy, as defined by s69(1)(a) as ‘The person’s genitals, buttocks or breasts are exposed or covered only with underwear’
• What is meant by the word ‘breasts’?
- deemed to be solely feminine
- acquitted of charges
Literal Rule - Whiteley v Chappell (1868)
• The degendant was charged under a section which made it an offence to impersonate “any person entitled to vote”
• The defendant had pretended lo be a person whose name was on the woters list but who had died
• The court held the the defended was not guilty since a dead person is not, in the literal meaning, “entitled to vote”
• Using the lteral rule in this case resulted in an absurd decision as the desendent was impersonating someone else in order to vote when he was not able to do so
- what the law aimed to prevent
Literal Rule - London and North Eastern Railway Company v Berriman (1946)
• A railway worker was killed while doing maintenance work
- Oiling points along the railway
• his widow tried to claim compensation because there had not been a look out proveded by the railway company in accordance with regulation under the Fatal Accidents Act
Stating a look out should be provided for men working on or near the railway line “for the purposes of relaying or repairing it”
• The court took the words “relaying” and “repairing” in their literal meaning and that oiling points was maintaining so Mrs Berriman’s claim failed
Golden Rule
• The golden rule starts with a literal meaning but if this produces an absurd result which Parliament could not have intended, the court is allowed to ‘avoid’ that result by using the golden rule and substitute a reasonable meaning in the light of the statute as a whole
• There are 2 approaches to the golden rule
- the narrow approach
- the broad approach
• Supported by Lord Wensleydale
Golden Rule - Narrow Approach
• Where a word has more than one meaning, the judge selects the most appropriate
Golden Rule - Broad Approach
• Where wording is clear but it would lead to a morally repugnant result, the judge ignores the words
Golden Rule - R v Allen (1872)
• Narrow Approach
• Charged with bigamy
• Marriage has 2 meanings
- to be legally married
- to go through a marriage ceremony with the intent of being legally married
• The second definition was used and the conviction was upheld
Golden Rule - Re Sigsworth (1935)
• Broad Approach
• Kills mother for her estate
• Court says morally wrong so he receives no inheritance as he wouldn’t have had it anyway unless she died of a natural cause
Golden Rule - Adler v George (1964)
• Obstructing a member of the armed forces ‘in the vicinity of any prohibited place’
• Court agreed that obstructing took place in the prohibited place itself
• Held that it is reasonable to construe vicinity as including being within a prohibited place
Mischief Rule
• Heydons Case (1584)
• What was the true reason for remedy?
• What was the remedy Parliament wanted to provide?
• What was the problem/mischief that the statute was trying to remedy?
• What was common law before the act?
Mischief Rule - Smith v Hughes (1960)
• A prostitute offered her services from the balcony of a house
• Held that she was guilty of the offence of soliciting ‘in a street of public place’
Mischief Rule - Eastbourne BC v Stirling (2000)
• A taxi driver parked his vehicle on a taxi rank on the station forecourt, not on a street, but was likely to get customers from the street
• Held that he was guilty of ‘plying for hire on any street’
• Court referred to Smith v Hughes
Mischief Rule - Elliot v Grey (1960)
• A car left on a road but jacked up with no battery
• Court claimed it as a hazard and designed as a mischief of the statute
Purposive Approach
• Magor and St Mellons v Newport Corporation (1950)
• Lord Denning
- “We sit here to find out the intention of Parliament and to carry it out, and we do this better by filling in the gaps and making sense of the enactment than by opening it up to destructive analysis”
• Judges decide what they believe Parliament meant to achieve
- Looks beyond mischief rule
Purposive Approach - R v Registrar General, ex parte Smith (1991)
• Smith is a murderer who wants to see his birth mother who he has never met
• Psychiatrist worries he might be hostile towards his mother so request denied
Purposive Approach - Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association (1999)
• Homosexual couple (before civil partnerships) lived together
- tenant died leaving a younger tenant
• House of Lords interpreted rent act 1977 meaning they were classed as family thus affording security to claimants
Purposive Approach - Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza (2004)
• Similar to Fitzpatrick
• House of Lords uses human rights act 1998
• No longer family but now surviving spouse
Disadvantages of Literal Rule - Assumes unattainable perfection
• If a draftsperson includes incorrect terms, it can alter the focus of the law
• This would not be a concern if the courts used the mischief and purposive approaches as they ignore the wording
Disadvantages of Literal Rule - It was popular but now it’s less popular
• The law is more focussed on the right result for the claimants and defendants
• It would be morally wrong to use the rules just to punish Parliament when it’s the defendants and claimants that bear the brunt of the rule
Disadvantages of Literal Rule - Can lead to an absurd result
• Case study
• Why it was wrong and what should have been used
Disadvantages of Literal Rule - Words meaning shifts over time
• The courts will spend more time trying to decider key terms from the 1800s rather than applying the law
• If we focus on the meaning of the act the result would be more just
Disadvantages of Literal Rule - Creates loopholes
• Why this is a problem
• Case study
Disadvantages of Literal Rule - Words can have more than one meaning
• Leading to the rule not being suitable and the courts having to decider the meaning
• Case study