Statutory interpretation Flashcards
An appeal by way of case stated
appeal on a point of law specific kind of appeal
Necessary for judges to be able to interpret the law correctly, process of interpreting statutes
3 rules of statutory interpretation:
literal rule, golden rule, mischief rule
Literal Rule
Apply law as it’s written, the words are given their ordinary meaning e.g. Berriman case
The problem with the literal rule is that occasionally if the law is applied as it is written, it may lead to a perverse outcome (make things worse)
Golden Rule
Looks at the outcome, is used to prevent inconsistency when interpreting an Act literally. Narrow approach - two interpretations of a word, (choose most appropriate meaning) only a couple of ways in which the judge can interest words e.g. Adler v George (1964) ‘in the vicinity’ one meaning is near the other meaning is actually being in the area itself
Wider approach - courts can modify the words in order to avoid a problem, where there is an obvious/clear meaning that could lead to an absurd result, when you have two possible interpretations you choose the one that makes more sense e.g. Re Sigsworth (1935) unless they had killed the victim to inherit wealth
Mischief Rule
Not clear what law is saying, if law is applied literally it may have a perverse outcome, must go beyond law and question what the law is trying to deal with when it was passed (original achievement). Focuses more on the purpose of the law more than the words/meaning
Able to look back at original laws and this is to stop inconsistencies
Mischief rule is narrower than
Judges must follow this when using the mischief rule:
Where the court said four issues need to be considered when interpreting statutes. These were to: examine the common law prior to the Act, locate the mischief/defeat in the common law, identify the remedy Parliament meant to propose to eliminate the mischief, and finally to give effect to that remedy
Purposive approach
- most appropriate approach
- Most statutes are clear and specific however from time to time there are problems
- General meanings can be ambiguous and vague, some words may have several meanings
most flexible
There are many reasons why meaning may be unclear/why we need statutory interpretation:
A broad term - draftsman may use a broad term and leave it to the user to judge what situations fall within it e.g. Dangerous dogs Act was vague
Ambiguity - words may have more than one meaning
A drafting error - draftsman who prepared the original Bill may have made an error which hasn’t been noticed by Parliament oe where the Bill was amended several times while going through parliament or simply a printing error
New developments - when the law was written things have since changed e.g. OAPA 1861 part that talks about abortion, that anyone who has an abortion or attempts to provide an abortion will be committing an offence, (1967 Abortion Act) but now abortion is legal so that part of OAPA is no longer relevant
Changes in use of language
Invitation to treat
display of an item either in a shop, on a website or at an auction. Even if it says ‘special offer’ or ‘for sale’, in strictly legal terms this is not the case. It only becomes an ‘offer for sale’ when the person who wants to buy presents it to the seller in exchange for money. Before this happens it is simply an ‘invitation to treat’
Ex parte
on behalf of (in the interest of) e.g. case R v Registrar-General, ex parte Smith
A&D of literal rule
A -> - follows wording of parliament
- prevents unelected judge making laws
- makes laws certain, easier to predict how judges will interpret law
D -> - not all acts are perfectly drafted
- can lead to unfair/unjust decisions
A&D of golden rule
A -> - respects words of Parliament
- allows judge to choose most sensible meaning
- avoids worst problems of literal rule
- allows judge to choose most sensible meaning
D -> - can only be used in limited situations
- not possible to predict when courts will use it
A&D of mischief rule
A -> - deals with mischief Parliament was trying to deal with (purpose)
- fills in the gap in law
- produces a ‘just’ result
D -> - risk of judicial law making
- not as wide as purposive approach
- limited to looking back at old law
- can make law uncertain
A&D purposive approach
A -> - leads to justice in individual cases
- allows for new developments in technology
- avoids absurd decisions and perverse outcomes
D -> - difficult to find Parliament’s intention
- allows judges to make law leads to uncertainty in the law (risk of judicial law making)
