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)
Smith v Hughes (1960)
Street offences act 1959 made it an offence for ‘a common prostitute to solicit in the street’
-prostitutes soliciting from a balcony
-under the literal rule they’d be not guilty
-court used the mischief rule to see why the act had been passed
-decided it’d been passed to prevent prostitution and remedy the mischief caused by prostitution
-therefore guilty
when was the mischief rule established?
Heydons Case 1584
DPP v Bull (1991)
the street offences act 1991 made it an offence for a ‘common prostitute to solicit in the street’
-case involved bull, a male prostitute
-court had to decide if the phrase common prostitute applied to both men and women
-dictionary said both (guilty under literal rule)
-court used mischief rule to find out why parliament had passed the act
-the wolfenden report on prostitution (written before the act) said it was coming into force to remedy a problem created by female prostitutes
-not guilty under mischief rule
how does the purposive approach work?
-similar to mischief rule
-judges try to find the purpose of the act
-judges can decide what they believe parliament intended
-the champion of this approach was lord denning
-now most common rule
-favoured by European courts
-must be used by courts when interpreting the Human Rights Act 1998
example of purposive approach
R v Registrar General ex Parte Smith
R v Registrar General ex Parte Smith
Adoption act 1976 stated when a person reached 18 they could access their birth certificate
-person wanting to access theirs was a patient at broadmoor , suffering from psychiatric problems and had murdered 2 people
-under literal rule he was entitled
-evidence he was going to use it to try to kill his mother
-court decided act had not been passed to enable people to commit murder
-denied access
advantages of mischief rule/purposive approach
-more flexible than the literal/golden rule
-can avoid absurd results by looking at why law was passed
-more likely to produce fair results
-judges can carry out the result parliament intended
-saves parliament time as judges can amend the law
-useful when new technology is involved (judges can keep the law up to date)
disadvantages of mischief rule/purposive approach
-does not respect parliamentary supremacy
-conflicts with the separation of powers
-mischief rule involves judicial law making
-use may lead to uncertainty/inconsistency in the law (difficult for lawyers to advise)
-judges don’t always agree when to use mischief rule
-mischief rule is not as wide as the purposive approach as can only be used when there was a ‘mischief’
what are aids to interpretation
things that judges use to help them understand the meaning of acts of parliament
intrinsic aids
limited use
-things within the act
-short title (unlikely to be useful)
-long title (unlikely to be useful)
-preamble (found in older acts, paragraph explaining purpose)
-interpretation section (contains definitions of words used in the act)
extrinsic aids
not in the act
-dictionary
-historical setting (looks at historical context)
-hansard (a written record of debates in parliament - every word)
(up until 1992 there was a firm law that judges could not look at hansard)
-reports of law reform bodies
hansard case
Pepper v Hart (1993)
Pepper v Hart 1993
the hol accepted that judges could use hansard in limited circumstances
-act must be ambiguous, obscure or lead to an absurdity
-statements in hansard must be clear
-statements must resolve ambiguity or absurdity
