Statutory interpretation Flashcards
Literal rule 8m
Courts give words their plain, ordinary or literal meaning despite the result
Lord Esher, R v Judge of the city of London court, if words of an are clear then you must follow them even thought they lead to a manifest of absurdity
Used in the case Berriman and resulted in an absurd result and a woman couldn’t receive compensation and didn’t fulfil the act’s purpose
Used in Cheeseman as police aren’t passer-by
Literal rule 12m
Adv, respects parliament supremacy, judges aren’t accused of law making
Adv, law is more certain, can’t be misinterpreted, can plan for outcome
Adv, highlights issues to parliament, amendments made
Disadv, assumes perfect act, parliament may not have said what they meant, errors in law
Disadv, words have multiple meanings, court confusion
Disadv, ignores change in meaning, outdated law
Disadv, unjust results, Berriman, injustice
Golden rule 8m
If the literal rule produces an absurdity, courts can use other meanings
Lord Blackburn, an absurdity so great… justify the court putting them in some other signification
Narrow application, choose between meanings, if 1 meaning then must be used, Allen
Wide application, 1 meaning that would be absurd then can modify statute to avoid, Re Sigsworth
Golden rule 12m
Adv, parliaments intentions used, no need to create new laws, saves time
Adv, respects supremacy, correct errors within act framework, judge freedom without making laws
Adv, escape from unjust results, Re Sigsworth, less errors
Disadv, no guideline on when/how to use, up to judges which rule to follow, however makes the law flexible
Disadv, leads to unpredictable results, don’t know which definition chosen, hard to advise
Disadv, undemocratic, too much power to judges, not public view
Mischief rule 8m
Defined in Heydon’s case
Consider common law before act, the mischief the common law didn’t provide, what remedy did parliament resolve, the true reason for the remedy
judges…make such construction as shall suppress the mischief and advance the remedy
discover what gap/mischief the act should cover and interpret the act to do so
Smith v Hughes, Elliot v Grey
Mischief rule 12m
Adv, it’s flexible, adapted to each case to meet the specific aim of it, less errors/injustice
Adv, statute continues to fit intended purpose, no need for amendments, saves time
Disadv, undemocratic, judicial law making, upsets public as not elected body to represent them
Disadv, uncertainty, can’t predict when it will be used and what the outcome is, hard to advise
Purposive approach 8m
Judges decide what they believe parliament meant to achieve (purpose of the act)
consider broader context in which the law was created
Lord Denning, Magor and St Mellons v Newport, find out the intention of parliament and carry it out
Maunsell, purpose and interpret words according to purpose
Jones v Tower Boot, Quintavelle v Secretary of State
Purposive approach 12m
Adv, it’s flexible, adapted to each case to meet the specific aim of it, less errors/injustice
Adv, statute continues to fit intended purpose, no need for amendments, saves time
Disadv, undemocratic, judicial law making, upsets public as not elected body to represent them
Disadv, uncertainty, can’t predict when it will be used and what the outcome is, hard to advise
Intrinsic aids 8m
Assist judges to help to find parliament’s intentions
Must be a part of the statute itself
words of the statute
any sections of the act where words are defined
the long title (sets out purpose)
short title
preamble (parliaments purpose in enacting the statute)
headings before groups of sections, schedules attached or marginal notes
Extrinsic aids 8m
Assist judges to help to find parliament’s intentions
Other materials outside the statute
Undisputed aids - previous acts on the same topic, the historical setting, earlier case law and dictionaries of the time
New acceptable aids - Hansard (official report of what was said when the act was debated), reports from law reform agencies, international conventions/ regulations/ directives implemented in English Law
