Statutory Interpretation Flashcards
What is Statutory Interpretation?
Judges interpret the law Parliament has put into statutes whenever a case deals with that statute
In order to implement the ‘will of Parliament’
Four Rules to help judges with SI
Literal Rule
Golden Rule
Mischief Rule
Purposive Approach
The Literal Rule
judges apply the plain, ordinary and dictionary meaning to the words in a statute and follow it very strictly, even if doing so leads to an unfair or absurd result. (‘even though they lead to manifest absurdity’)
Literal Rule Cases
LNER v Berriman
DPP v Cheeseman
LNER v Berriman
V was killed whilst on his job. He was maintaining the tracks, but the statute (Fatal Accidents Act 1846) said a lookout was only required if ‘relaying or repairing’ the tracks. The courts took this literally (V was not relaying or repairing), thus saying V did not require a lookout, and LNER were not liable.
DPP v Cheeseman
D exposed himself in a public bathroom to a police officer. The Town Police.Clauses Act 1847 said it’s an offence to willingly and indecently expose one’s person in a STREET to the annoyance of PASSENGERS - police officers weren’t ‘passengers’ because the definition of a passenger in 1847 is a person passing through or using the place for its ordinary purpose (the police were there to arrest D) - so D was not guilty.
The Golden Rule
Looks at the literal meaning of words in an Act
BUT
if using the literal meaning would lead to an absurd/unjust result, then the courts can use the golden rule
2 versions of the golden rule - the narrow approach or the broad approach
The Golden Rule - Narrow Approach
If a phrase has 2+ possible meanings then the judge may choose between those meanings to select the most appropriate meaning to fit the case (can’t invent new meanings)
R v Allen - D tried to marry someone whist already married - charged with bigamy under OAPA 1861
–> crime to marry whilst other wife was still alive
–> married could mean ‘to be legally married’ or ‘to go through a wedding ceremony’
court chose the second meaning as it would be possible to ‘legally’ marry 2 people as that would be bigamy
The Golden Rule - Broad Approach
When words have one meaning but that meaning would lead to an absurd or repugnant result, the courts can modify the words of the statute to avoid the problem
Re Sigsworth - Administration of Estates Act 1925 - son would inherit as mother’s “issue” but he killed the mum - no ambiguity in the words of the Act but a murderer cannot benefit from their crime.
The golden rule was used to say ‘issue inherits in the absence of a will… but not where the issue has murdered the deceased’
The Mischief Rule
requires judges to identify the mischief P was trying to stop by making the statute, and interpret the statute to stop the mischief (Heydon’s Case 1584)
The Mischief Rule - Heydon’s Case
1584
[identify 2 Heydon points for an exam question in intro]
Heydon’s Case asks 4 questions:
- What was the common law before the Act was created? (old law before statute?)
- What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide? (problem which the old law didn’t solve?)
- What was the remedy that P created to cure the mischief? (solution created in the new statute?)
- What was the reason for the remedy? (reason for solution?)
Mischief Rule Cases
Smith v Hughes
RCN v DHSS
Smith v Hughes
D’s (prostitutes) were in the doorway on a balcony of a house getting the attention of passers-by in the street
They were charged under the Street Offences Act 1959 with soliciting in a street or public place for the purposes of prostitution
D’s weren’t literally in the street themselves
Before the SOA, prostitutes harasses passers-by in the street - this was the problem the SOA was trying to solve
Therefore it didn’t matter whether the prostitutes were in the street or not, just that they were causing the mischief (harassment) which the statute tried to stop - therefore D’s were found guilty.
RCN v DHSS
nurses were helping to perform abortions
only ‘registered medical practitioners’ were legally able to help carry out the procedure (Abortion Act 1967)
However only doctors were RMPs at the time
The Act was passed to stop dangerous/illegal street abortions but by allowing trained nurses, this would mean safer abortions
So nurses were allowed to aid with abortions.
The Purposive Approach
This goes beyond the mischief rule and considers the “purpose” of P
This looks at what P intended to achieve by passing the statute
Lord Denning - judges can look beyond the wording of the Act and aren’t strictly bound by the wording
