statutory interpretation Flashcards
why do we need statutory interpretation
In the English Legal System it is the role of Parliament to make legislation and the role of judges to interpret and apply the law
In most cases the meaning of the law is clear and unambiguous, but sometimes there may be uncertainty about the meaning of a particular aspect in an Act
why do many cases come a year
the meaning of an Act of Parliament is unclear this could be due to a phrase or one word
For example, there were issues in relation to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
‘any dog of the type known as the pit bull terrier’
In Brock v DPP (1993) it was established that the term ‘type’ has a wider meaning that simply the breed of dog
Royal College of Nursing v DHSS (1981)
There may be new developments that result in the old Act not fully covering present day situations
This case concerns who can give an abortion - the Abortion Act 1967 is very old now!
DPP v Cheeseman (1990)
Or there may be changes in the use of language,This case concerns the word ‘passengers’
police officers witnessed a man exposing himself
In order for him to be guilty of an offence he must have been caught exposing himself to ‘passengers’ (people passing through)
Using the literal rule (and a dictionary) the courts determined that the police officers were not ‘passengers’ as they were stationary
He was not guilty
The literal rule
The starting point for any interpretation Under this rule the courts will give words their plain, ordinary or literal meaning
It was established by Lord Esher in R v Judge of the City of London Court (1892) where it was held that-
‘if the words of an Act are clear then you must follow them even though they lead to a manifest absurdity’
Whiteley v Chappell (1868)
An offence to impersonate any person entitled to vote at an election’
The defendant attempted to vote by using the name of a deceased person
It was held that he was not guilty of an offence because when the statute was interpreted literally it was determined that a dead person is not entitled to vote
This resulted in an absurd decision
LNER v Berriman (1946)
The literal rule can also lead to unjust or unfair decisions
A workman was killed by a train when he was carrying out maintenance work, he was oiling the points of the track and no look out man had been provided
The statute stated that there had to be a lookout man had to be provided where employees were ‘relaying or repairing the track’
He wasn’t relaying or repairing the track, he was maintaining it
The golden rule
This is a modification of the literal rule as it starts by looking at the literal meaning of the words The court is allowed to avoid an interpretation which would lead to an absurd result
There are two views on how far the golden rule should be used
A narrow approach
A wide approach
very narrow approach
Demonstrated in Jones v DPP (1962) when Lord Reid stated that-
‘(if the words) are capable of more than one meaning, then you can choose between those meanings, but beyond this you cannot go’.
Adler v George (1964)
Under the Official Secrets Act 1920 it was an offence to obstruct members of HM forces ‘in the vicinity’ of a prohibited area
Adler had in fact been arrested whilst obstructing such forces inside a prohibited place
He argued that he was not in the vicinity of a prohibited place as he was actually in a prohibited place
The court interpreted phrase to mean ‘in, or in the vicinity of’ because those inside the base would create a greater danger than those on the outside
wide approach
This allows the courts to avoid the clear meaning of a word or phrase if they feel it would result in a repugnant situation
This was used in the case of Re Sigsworth (1935)
A son murdered his mother, who died without making a will and under Administration of Estates Act 1925 his mother’s estate would automatically pass to him as ‘next of kin’
The court ruled that he should not benefit from his illegal acts
The estate did not pass to him as this would have been a repugnant situation
The mischief rule
This rule gives a judge more discretion than the other two rules
The judge will look at the earlier law to see what the defect was that the new law was trying to fix
The definition comes from Heydon’s Case (1584)
Smith v Hughes (1960)
The Street Offences Act 1959 was created to stop the problem of the nuisance caused by prostitutes seeking business in the streets
The Act made it unlawful to ‘solicit in the street’
The court ruled that even though the women were not in the street (they were on balconies or in windows) they were still causing a nuisance and were convicted
The purposive approach
This goes beyond the mischief rule, and is wider
The court is not just looking to see what the gap was in the old law, but deciding what they believe Parliament meant to achieve
They are looking to see what the purpose of the Act was
Quintavalle
purposive approach
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 granted the HFEA the right to licence research with regards to embryos
An embryo was defined in the Act as ‘a live human embryo where fertilisation is complete’
However, embryos created using cloning are not fertilised
Quintavalle was trying to argue that HFEA could not licence research regarding cloning
When the Act was passed in 1990 there was only one way of creating an embryo outside of the human body
Parliament could not have imagined that cloning could be possible for human embryos
In his judgement Lord Bingham stated ‘The court’s task, within permissible bounds of interpretation is to give effect to Parliament’s purpose… Parliament could not have intended to distinguish between embryos produced by, or without, fertilisation, since it was unaware of the latter possibility’
