Statutory Interpretation Flashcards
Purposive approach
where judges look to see why is the purpose of the law when interpreting n statute.
e.g. R v Coleman / R v Registar-General ex padre Smith
Literal rule
Where judges use the exact meaning of words when interpreting statute no matter how absurd the outcome
e.g. Whitley V Chappell / London and North Eastern railway co. V Berriman
Golden rule
where judges decide the literal rule produces absurd results when interpreting statute. narrow approach: choose between possible meanings of a word. wide approach: change words to avoid absurdity.
e.g. Adler V George
Mischief Rule
Used to prevent the mischief an act is aimed at. Rule looks back to the gap in the previous law and interprets the act so as to cover the gap.
e.g. Smith V Hughes
Internal/Intrinsic aids
they are ‘inside the act’
- introductory text/long title which may give some clues that will help with the mischief rule or purposive approach
- explanatory notes included in the margin to show why a section is about
- a glossary of key terms in some acts.
External/extrinsic aids
they are ‘outside the act’
-historical context of the act (a word may have been common when the act was created)
- dictionaries and textbooks
- previous commercial practice
- treaties with international law, in order to give continuity to the meaning of words
advantages literal rule
-respects parliamentary sovereignty
- provides certainty, law will be interpreted exactly as it is written
- focuses kind of parliament forcing them to use clear language
disadvantages literal rule
-where it leads to unjust results it can hardly be said to be enacting the will of parliament
- assumes every act will be perfectly drafted
-can undermine parliaments intentions rather than further them
- not all acts have the benefit of explanatory notes.
golden rule advantages
-provides way of avoiding worst problems made by literal rule whilst attempting to respect parliamentary sovereignty
disadvantages of golden rule
- 2 approaches could lead to further inconsistency
- there is no definition for an absurd result
advantages mischief rule
-responds positively to loopholes in the law
- more likely to produce a ‘just’ result because judges try to interpret the law in the way parliament meant it to work
-reinforces importance of explanatory notes
-
disadvantages mischief rule
-judges going beyond their authority by filling gaps (contradicting parliamentary sovereignty)
- may lead to uncertainty impossible to know when judges will use the rule and what result is will lead to.
- not all acts have the benefit of explanatory notes
advantages purposive approach
- most likely lead to justice in individual cases
- allows judges to respond to new technology
- gives judges discretion on when and how to avoid the absurdity of the literal rule
disadvantages of purposive approach
- how can judges know parliaments intentions
- allows unelected judges to ‘make law’
-leads to same uncertainty as mischief rule
