Statutory Interpretation [

Question 1

BROCK V DPP

Answer 1

Dangerous dogs act 1991 - any dog of the type known as pitbull terrier. Deciodwedd that type had wider meaning than breed, included do with similar physical features

Question 2

4 rules/approach

Answer 2

Literal rule
- golden rule
-mischief rule
- purposive approach

Question 3

Literal rule def and cases

Answer 3

Under his rule courts give words plain ordinary meaning even if outcome absurd
- R V JUDGE - if words are clear then you must follow them even though they lead to absurdity’
- WHITELEY V CHAPPELL - guilty of impersonating someone to vote but not guilty as wording was any person entitled to vote and impersonated someone dead
- FISHER V BELL - charged with offering knife for sale after putting in shop window - under law it was invitations to treat not offer to buy so not guilty

Question 4

Golden rule def

Answer 4

Starts looking at literal meaning but court all0wed to avoid interpretation which would be absurd result.
Narrow approach - choose between 2 possible meanings of word or phrase
Broad approach - can modify words of statute if result would be absurd

Question 5

Golden rule cases

Answer 5

JONES V DPP clarified can choose between 2 meanings

R V ALLEN- offence to marry while original spouse alive. Word marry can mean to legally marry or to take [art in a ceremony of marriage. Court decided this second meaning as ceremony is still marrying

ADLER V GEORGE- obstructing armed forces in vicinity of prohibited place. Argued was in the place not in the vicinity. Court intep[reted vicinity as including in the place

Question 6

Mischief rule def

Answer 6

Court can look at what ;aw used to be before an av to discover mischief it meant to cover.

Heydons case - should consider
- what law was before act
-what was a mischief which law did not fix
-What remedy does act provide
- what is true reason for remedy

Question 7

Mischief rule case

Answer 7

Smith v Hughes’s- offence for prostitution to loiter out solicit in a street or public place. Prosititues argued they weren’t in a street as they were on balcony and windows. Court considered what act meant to do - clean up the streets if prosititues - appeals rejected

Question 8

Purposive approach def

Answer 8

Beyond mischeif rule. Court decided what they believe paliamaent meant to achieve. Criticised as if words are clear they should be be ignored when working out intention. Can use extrinsic aids.

Question 9

Purposive approach cases

Answer 9

R v registrar general ex parte smith - registrar general shall supply birth certificate to adopted person. With applied for this but was a murderer and intended to kill birth mother . Court said RG did not have to give certificate as intention wasn’t to promote crime

Jones v Tower boot - CA took meaning of race relation act to aim to get rid of discrimination in workplace - found employers liable for racism in workplace