statutory interpretation Flashcards
what are the 4 rules regarding statutory interpretation?
- literal rule
- golden rule
- mischief rule
- purposive approach
what is the literal rule?
court gives words their plain, ordinary or literal meaning even if this produces an absurd result
defined in R v Judge of the City of London Court (1892) – Lord Esher
what does the literal rule respect?
Parliamentary supremacy as it follows exactly what Parliament wrote and the exact meaning of the word without trying to change it.
Separation of powers as judges are not deciding what the law is or should be. They simply apply the literal meaning of the word and that is the end of it.
cases displaying the literal rule
Cheeseman v DPP (1990)
London & North Eastern Railway Co v Berriman (1946)
Whitely v Chappell (1868)
Fisher v Bell (1961)
Cheeseman v DPP (1990)
- Defendant was witnessed masturbating in a public toilet by two police officers.
- According to the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 they had to be passengers
- Court used a dictionary from 1847 to look at what the word ‘passengers’ meant – it meant ‘passers-by’
- Court held that as the police officers were stationed there, they were not ‘passengers’ in the literal sense of the word.
London & North Eastern Railway Co v Berriman (1946)
- Railway worker killed whilst oiling points along a railway line
- Widow tried to claim compensation as there had been no look-out provided by the railway company.
- Fatal Accidents Act stated that a look-out had to be provided for men when they were “relaying or repairing” the railway line
- Court stated that as oiling was just maintaining the track and neither relaying or repairing it, Mrs Berriman was not entitled to compensation.
Whitely v Chappell (1868)
- Defendant impersonated someone who had died to cast a second vote in an election
- Statute made it an offence to “impersonate any person entitled to vote”
- Court ruled that a dead person was not “entitled to vote” and therefore they acquitted the defendant.
Fisher v Bell (1961)
- Defendant displayed a flick-knife in a store window contrary to offensive weapons legislation
- Law made it an offence to “offer for sale” a flick-knife
- Court ruled that under the law of contract, the defendant was actually only offering an “invitation to treat” whereby a customer would ask to purchase the flick-knife
- Therefore he wasn’t strictly or literally “offering for sale” the flick-knife
what is the golden rule?
- This rule is simply an extension of the literal rule
- If by using the literal rule – the court produces an absurd result, then the court can interpret the word(s) differently to produce a more appropriate interpretation
Grey v Pearson (1857) – Lord Wensleydale
what are the two approaches to the use of
the golden rule?
narrow and wide approach
narrow approach
golden rule
If a word(s) has two or more possible meanings, the court can choose the most appropriate meaning between the options. If there is only one meaning then they should go with that regardless of whether it produces an absurd result
r v allen, adler v george
wide approach
If the word(s) has only one possible meaning but this produces an absurd result, the court will choose a more appropriate meaning
re sigsworth
what are the cases regarding golden rule?
- R v Allen (1872)
- Re Sigsworth (1935)
- Adler v George (1964)
R v Allen (1872)
- Defendant was charged with the offence of bigamy.
- The statute stated that ‘whosoever being married shall marry any other person during the lifetime of the former husband or wife is guilty”
- Under a literal interpretation of this section the offence would be impossible to commit since civil law will not recognise a second marriage any attempt to marry in such circumstances would not be recognised as a valid marriage.
- Court therefore applied the golden rule and held that the word ‘marry’ should be interpreted as ‘to go through a marriage ceremony’.
- The defendant’s conviction was upheld.
Re Sigsworth (1935)
- Son murdered own mother
- Mother hadn’t made a will so estate would normally go to the next of kin (him) as he is the “issue” under rules on inheritance
- no ambiguity in the act, and the term “issue” had no other interpretation other than the next of kin.
- The court did not want him to inherit the money so they used the golden rule and said the “issue” could not include those who had murdered the person they were to inherit from
wide approach
Adler v George (1964)
- Defendant broke into a army/navy base.
- Charged with obstructing Her Majesty’s Forces “in the vicinity” of a prohibited place
- The problem was that he was in the prohibited place, not in the vicinity of a prohibited place
- Court ruled that “in the vicinity” actually meant “in or in the vicinity” of a prohibited place
- Defendant was found guilty
what is the mischief rule?
Court considers the mischief that Parliament was trying to stop when they first passed the law and then try and interpret the word(s) to best give effect to stopping this mischief
definition comes from Heydon’s case (1584) - 4 points to consider
-What was the law before the making of the Act?
-What was the mischief they were trying to stop?
-What was the remedy proposed by Parliament?
-What was the true reason for that remedy?
which cases illustrate the mischief rule?
- Corkery v Carpenter (1951)
- Smith v Hughes (1960)
- Royal College of Nursing v DHSS (1981)
Corkery v Carpenter
Defendant was in charge of a bicycle whilst drunk
It was an offence to be drunk in charge of a “carriage”
Court had to decide what the word “carriage” meant so they looked at what the mischief was - drunks on the highway in charge of a form of transport
They then interpreted the word “carriage” with this mischief in mind and decided that a bicycle fell within the meaning of the word “carriage”
Defendant was found guilty
Smith v Hughes
Defendant was a prostitute who was arrested after beckoning men into her property by waving through windows or from a balcony
The law criminalised soliciting “in a street or public place”
Under a literal definition of the phrase, the women were not “in a street or public place” - they were inside a property
Court considered the mischief the Act was trying to prevent - trying to stop prostitution and to clean up the streets.
The court therefore interpreted the phrase so as to find the defendants guilty
Royal College of Nursing v DHSS
Wording of the Abortion act 1967 read that a pregnancy should be “terminated by a registered medical practitioner” only
By 1981 it had become common practice for nurses to carry out abortions rather than doctors
The literal meaning of a “registered medical practitioner” is a doctor
Royal College of Nursing put a case forward to determine the law and then advise nurses on whether to continue or stop carrying out abortions
Court considered the mischief of the Act - to decrease the number of illegal abortions and increase the hygiene and safety of abortions
As nurses were fulfilling these requirements they ruled that nurses fell within the definition of “registered medical practitioners”
What is the purposive approach?
This rule goes beyond the mischief rule and the court tries to determine what Parliament was trying achieve.
Rather than considering the mischief Parliament was trying to stop they focus on the purpose of the Act
which cases show the purposive approach?
- Jones v Tower Boot Company
- R v Registrar-General, ex parte Smith
- R (Quintavalle) v SOS for Health
Jones v Tower Boot Company
- young black worker was discriminated against by his workmates
- Race Relations Act 1976 made it the responsibility of employers to deal with discrimination that fell within ‘the course of employment’
- Employer argued the discrimination fell outside the course of their employment and so they weren’t responsible
- According to the court, Parliament’s intention when enacting the Race Relations Act was to eliminate discrimination in the workplace
- They therefore said that whilst it fell outside the course of their employment, the employer should still have dealt with it
- The decision was awarded in favour of the defendant
R v Registrar-General, ex parte Smith
A convicted murderer found out he was adopted whilst in prison
- The adoption Act 1967 allows anyone over the age of 18 to request the details of their birth parents
- Psychiatrists believed he may be hostile towards his natural mother and recommended he should not be provided with the information
- Court ruled that Parliament would never have intended to promote serious crime and so held that the defendant was not able to access the records
R (Quintavelle) v SOS for Health
- Question came before the HoL as to whether a cloned embryo (using CNR technique) came within the definition of an “embryo” under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act
- The act defined an embryo as being where “fertilisation is complete”
- When the Act was passed in 1990, CNR was not invented
- CNR involves cloning the embryo so there is no fertilisation process
- The court ruled that the purpose of the Act was to cover all types of embryos and therefore CNR embryos were covered by the Act
What are the rules of language?
- expressio unius exclusio alterius
- ejusdem generis
- noscitur a sociis
Expression unius exclusio alterius
The express mention of one thing excludes others
Where there is a list of words which is not followed by general words, then the Act only applies to those items that are not on the list
- Tempest v Kilner
Tempest v Kilner
The court had to decide whether the sale of some stocks and shares had to be evidenced in writing to comply with the Statue of Frauds (1677)
The Act required a contract for sale of ‘goods, wares and merchandise’ of more than £10 to be evidenced in writing
Since the lists ‘goods, wares and merchandise’ was not followed by any general words, it only applied to the specific items listed and stocks and shares were therefore not included
Ejusdem generis
-of the same kind
Where there is a list of words followed by general words, then the general words are limited to the same kind of items as the specific words
- Powell v Kempton Park Racecourse
Powell v Kempton Park Racecourse
The court had to decide whether an outdoor betting ring would be included under an offence charged as “keeping a house, office, room or other place for betting’
The general words “other place for betting” had to be the same type as the other specific things ‘house, office or room’
Because all of the specific things mentioned are indoor rooms, and the outdoor ring was an outside thing, the Act did not apply
Noscitur a sociis
-a word is known by the company it keeps
The words must be looked at in context and interpreted accordingly; it
involves looking at other words in the same section or at other sections
in the Act.
Pengelly v Bell Punch Co. Ltd (1964)
Pengelly v Bell Punch Co. Ltd (1964)
The court had to decide whether a floor used for storage came under
the Factories Act 1961, whereby ‘floors, steps, stairs, passageways and
gangways’ had to be kept free from obstruction.
The court held that as all the other words were used to indicate
passage, a floor used exclusively for storage did not fall within the Act
what are the two aids of interpretaion?
- intrinsic aids
- extrinsic aids
what are intrinsic aids?
Aids within the statute itself that can help make the meaning of a word(s) clearer
- judge can consider the long title, the short title and the preamble of any Act
- other useful internal aids are any headings before a group of sections, and any schedules attached to the Act
- marginal notes explain different sections, but these are not generally regarded as giving parliament’s intention as they will have been inserted after parliamentary debates and are only helpful comments put in by the printer
what are extrinsic aids?
Aids found outside of the Act itself that can help make the meaning of a word(s) clearer
- Dictionaries of the time of the Act – one used in Cheeseman v DPP to
determine the meaning of the word “passengers” - Hansard – official report of what is said during debates in Parliament.
Until 1992, Hansard was not allowed to be used by judges, however the case of Pepper v Hart changed this.
Textbooks and academic journals
Law Commission Reports
Case law from other countries – used in R v Bentham (USA gun laws)
