statutory interpretation

Question 1

statutory interpretation

Answer 1

• how judges interpret/apply the words laid down in statute

Question 2

literal rule

Answer 2

• when words of the statute are given their literal meaning (london & north eastern railway v berriman)

Question 3

literal rule advantages

Answer 3

1. leads to a democratic result (follows the words of parliament)
2. does not allow for judges to put forward their own interpretation of statutes
3. following the literal meaning of the statute, it makes the meaning certain
4. easier to predict how a judge will rule in a case

Question 4

literal rule disadvantages

Answer 4

1. not all statutes are perfectly crafted
2. words can have more than one meaning
3. literal can lead to absurd and unfair decisions

Question 5

golden rule

Answer 5

• extension of the literal rule, judges may take a more sensible interpretation to avoid injustice

Question 6

narrow approach (golden rule)

Answer 6

• a word or phrase is capable of more than one literal meaning, the narrow application leaves the judges to select the meaning of the word that avoids an absurd result (r v allen)

Question 7

broad approach (golden rule)

Answer 7

• there is only one literal meaning of a word or phrase, but to apply it would lead to an absurdity, under the broad approach the court will modify the meaning of the word to avoid the absurdity (sigsworth)

Question 8

golden rule advantages

Answer 8

1. respects the words of Parliament except in limited situations
2. allows judges to choose the most sensible interpretation of words within the statute
3. avoids the worst problems of the literal rule (e.g creation of absurd results)

Question 9

golden rule disadvantages

Answer 9

1. can only be used in limited situations and on rare occasions
2. not possible to predict when the courts will use it

Question 10

the mischief rule

Answer 10

• the judges attempt to identify the ‘mischief’ the statute was intended to remedy

Question 11

mischief rule advantages

Answer 11

1. more flexible
2. allows judges to look back at the gap in the law which the act was designed to cover
3. emphasis on trying to follow parliament’s intention

Question 12

mischief rule disadvantages

Answer 12

1. risk that judges may impose their own ideas about how to remedy the mischief which leads to judges actually creating laws when it should be left to parliament
2. not always easy to discover the mischief the act was intended to remedy
3. laid out in the 16th century so is considered to be out of date

Question 13

four points the courts consider for the mischief rule

Answer 13

1. what was the common law before making the act?
2. what was the mischief and defeat for which the common law did not provide?
3. what was the remedy parliament passed to cure the mischief?
4. what was the true reason for the remedy?

Question 14

purposive approach

Answer 14

• most flexible
• judges decide what they believe Parliament meant to achieve

Question 15

purposive approach advantages

Answer 15

1. leads to justice in individual cases
2. allows for new development in technology
3. avoids absurd decisions

Question 16

purposive approach disadvantages

Answer 16

1. difficult to find parliament’s intention
2. allows judges to make law
3. leads to uncertainty in law

Question 17

aids to statutory interpretation

Answer 17

• materials that helps judges to interpret the act and decide what parliament intended or what interpretation should be given to a word or phrase

Question 18

internal/intrinsic aids

Answer 18

• contained within the act itself (e.g the statute itself, interpretation sections, headings/sections/marginal notes)

Question 19

external/extrinsic aids

Answer 19

• aids found outside the statute that will help a judge interpret the words of the statute (e.g textbooks of the time, previous acts, earlier case law)

Question 20

hansards (external aid)

Answer 20

• the official report of parliament debates - extrinsic aid

Question 21

effect of EU law

Answer 21

• purposive approach is the preferred method in european countries and the ECJ in interpreting the law

Question 22

effect of EU law in english courts

Answer 22

1. have to use the purposive approach for laws which have been passed in order to comply with EU law
2. as judges have been using this approach for the last 40 years, they have become accustomed to it and are more likely to apply it to english law

Question 23

human rights act 1998

Answer 23

• where it is possible, all laws should comply with section 3 of the human rights act (mendoza v ghaidan)