Statutory Interpretation Flashcards
Needs for statutory interpretation.
Changes in the use of language - Cheeseman V DPP (1990)
Ambiguity
Drafting error
New Developments - Royal College of Nursing V DHSS (1981)
A Broad Term - Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
What are the three rules of interpretation
- The golden rule
- The literal rule
- The mischief rule
What is the literal rule?
Courts give a words their plain, ordinary meaning, even if the result is not very sensible
Cases for literal rule
R V Harris (1836)
Fisher V Bell (1960)
Whiteley V Chappell (1868)
What is the golden rule?
Looking at the literal meaning but the court is allowed to avoid an interpretation which would lead to an absurd result.
Cases for the golden rule (narrow)
Jones V DPP (1962)
R V Allen (1892)
Adler V George (1964)
Cases for golden rule (broad)
Re Sigsworth (1935)
What is the mischief rule?
Court looks at what law was before the act in order to discover what gap or mischief the Act was intended to cover.
Cases for mischief rule
Originates from: Heydon’s case (1584)
Smith V Hughes (1960)
Royal College of Nursing v DHHS
What is the purposive approach?
Not just looking for the gap in old law, the Judges go beyond to decide what they believe Parliament meant to achieve.
Purposive approach cases
Magor & St Mellons V Newport Corp (1950)
2 types of aid
Intrinsic - within the aid
Extrinsic - outside the act
Advantages of Statutory interpretation
- Ensures Flexibility
- Promotes fairness
- Fills in gaps
- Promotes judicial consistency
Ensures Flexibility (advs)
- Judges can adapt the law to changing societal norms and situations. This flexibility helps keep the law relevant.
- R v. R (1991) , House of Lords used statutory interpretation to rule that a husband could be found guilty of raping his wife.
Promotes fairness (advs)
- If a statute’s language is unclear or ambiguous, judges can interpret it in a way that leads to fairer outcomes.
- Smith v. Hughes (1960), the court interpreted the law on soliciting prostitution to cover women who were soliciting
Fills in gaps (advs)
- Statutes can be incomplete or vague, and interpretation by judges can fill in these gaps.
- Jones v. Tower Boot Co Ltd (1997), the court interpreted employment law to extend protection against racial harassment to employees subjected to it outside the workplace, thereby broadening the law’s protection.
Promotes judicial consistency (advs)
- Statutory interpretation allows courts to establish precedents, which helps maintain consistency.
- Misrepresentation Act 1967 has been interpreted in various cases to guide the courts in determining the level of compensation for those who have suffered from misrepresentation.
Disadvantages of Statutory interpretation
- Undemocratic
- Lack of clarity
- Time-consuming and expensive
- Rigid adherence to wording
Undemocratic (disadvantages)
- It allows judges to create or modify laws, which is traditionally the role of Parliament.
- R v. Brown (1993), the court interpreted the law in a way that criminalised consensual sadomasochistic acts between adults.
Lack of clarity/unpredictability (disadvantages)
- Interpretation of statutes can vary depending on the method a judge chooses to apply (e.g., literal, golden, or purposive rules)
- Fisher v. Bell (1961), the literal rule was applied, and the court ruled that displaying a flick knife in a shop window was not “offering it for sale” under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959.
Time-consuming and expensive (disadvantages)
- Interpreting statutes can require lengthy arguments in court, involving detailed analysis of previous cases, legislation, and external materials
Rigid adherence to wording (disadvantages)
- Methods like the literal rule can result in absurd or unfair outcomes when judges strictly follow the words of a statute without considering its purpose.
- London & North Eastern Railway Co v. Berriman (1946), a widow was denied compensation because her husband was maintaining, not “repairing or relaying,” tracks
