Statutory Interpretation Flashcards
what is statutory interpretation
how judges have to interpret the meaning of acts of parliament
parliaments role in law making
-their role is to pass laws
-statute law
judges role in law making
-have to read the laws passed by parliament and try to understand them
-they then apply the law to the case
why interpreting an act of parliament may be difficult
-may be over complicated and difficult to understand
-words used may be ambiguous
-broad and unclear terms may be used
-there may be errors
-statues may be rushed
-over time the meaning of words may change
-new technology may mean that an old act does not cover present day situations
example of broad and unclear terms used in an act of parliament
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
‘any dog of the type known as Pit Bull Terrier’
example of a rushed act of parliament
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
-passed in one day
the four rules judges use to help them interpret acts
-literal rule
-golden rule
-mischief rule
-purposive rule
how does the literal rule work
-judges will give words their plain, ordinary, literal meaning
-will often use a dictionary to discover the literal meaning of a word
-the literal meaning of the words must be followed, even if the result is absurd
-historically this was the most common rule
case examples of the literal rule
-LNER v Berriman (1946)
-Fisher v Bell (1960)
-Cheeseman
LNER v Berriman (1946)
Fatal Accidents Act- compensation only available to workers killed whilst ‘relaying/repairing’ the line
-worker killed by train whilst oiling tracks
-his widow tried to claim compensation
-court said he had not been ‘relaying/repairing’ but maintaining
-under the literal rule, she could not claim compensation
Fisher v Bell (1960)
-an offence to ‘offer for sale flick knives’
-D had flick knives displayed in shop window
-however, under contract law displaying items in the shop window, it’s not an ‘offer for sale’ but an invitation to treat
-goods are laid out so that the customer can make an offer to buy them
-under the literal rule, D was not guilty
advantages of the literal rule
-respects Parliamentary supremacy -stops judges using their own opinions or prejudices
- can send a message to Parliament (by using the literal rule to reach an absurd result to persuade parliament to change the law quickly)
-Quick simple and easy to use
disadvantages of the literal rule
-can lead to absurd decisions
(e.g Cheeseman)
-can lead to unfair results
(e.g LNER v Berriman) - no flexibility
-fails to recognise the complexity of the English language
(words/phrases can be ambiguous)
-May defeat the will of Parliament
(produce results unintended)
-undermines public confidence in the law
how does the golden rule work
-an extension of the literal rule
-The judge starts by looking at the literal meaning of the words
-however, the court can avoid the literal meaning of the result is absurd
the narrow approach (golden rule)
if a word is capable of more than one meaning, the court can choose between those meanings
case example of the narrow approach
R v Allen (1872)
R v Allen (1872)
- it was an offence to marry whilst already married (bigamy)
-He was married, but went through a marriage ceremony with another woman.
-D argued, he could not be guilty as it was impossible to legally marry more than one person
-court decided that ‘marry’ had two meetings
(legal marriage or to go through a marriage ceremony)
-court chose the second meaning and D was found guilty
the broader approach (golden rule)
words have one clear meaning, but following that clear meaning would lead to a repugnant situation
example of the broader approach
Re Sigsworth (1935)
Re sigsworth (1935)
Administration of Estates Act- if a person died without a will, their inheritance would automatically go to their next of kin
-D murdered his mother (who hadn’t made a will)
-using the literal rule, D would inherit all his mothers money
-court were not prepared to let a murderer benefit from his crime
-the broader approach of the golden rule was used to prevent the repugnant situation
Advantages of the golden rule
-allows the courts to avoid absurd results
(e.g R v Allen, Re sigsworth)
-allows the court to avoid unfair results
(e.g if used in Berriman case)
-courts can put into practice what Parliament really intended
-errors in drafting can be corrected immediately
Disadvantages of the golden rule
-no clear meaning of an ‘absurd result’
(rule may be use differently by different judges, could lead to inconsistency)
-The narrow version can only be used in very limited circumstances
-Broader approach gives judges too much power(
Judges are not following exact words of parliament and may not respect Parliamentary supremacy)
how does the mischief rule work
1- what was the law before the act was passed?
2- what mischief was the act trying to remedy?
3- what was the remedy that parliament provided?
examples of the mischief rule
Smith v Hughes (1960)
DPP v Bull (1991)
