Statutory Interpretation Flashcards
Define the Literal Rule
- Take the words in plain ordinary meaning, even if the result is not very sensible
State an A02 for the Literal Rule.
- R v Judge of the City of London court 1892
- Lord Esher stated “if the words of an Act are clear then you must follow them even of they lead to a manifest absurdity. The court has nothing to do with the question whether the legislature has committed an absurdity”
State another A02 for the literal Rule.
- Whiteley v Chappell 1868
- In this case the defendant was charged under a section that made it an offence to impersonate ‘ any person entitled to vote’. d had pretended to be a person whose name was on the voter’s list but had died.
- the court held that he was not guilty since a dead person is not, in the literal meaning of the words , ‘entitled to vote’
- the law was made absurd in this case.
State another A02 for the Literal Rule.
- The London and North eastern Railway v Berriman 1946.
- the claimants’s husband was killed while oiling the points along the railway line. Compensation was only payable if he had been “relaying or repairing” the line. The House of Lords held that oiling points was maintaining the line and not “ relaying or repairing”.
Name the advantages of the Literal Rule.
-It follows the rule that Parliament makes law not judges which prevents unelected judges from making law
-makes the law more certain: the law is interpreted exactly how it is written
- people will know what the law is and how judges will apply it. Which could lead to a decrease in crime.
Name the disadvantages of the Literal Rule.
- assumes every act is perfectly drafted
- words do not cover every situation eg Whitley vs Chappell 1868
- words may have more than one meaning e.g Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
- following the literal approach may lead to unjust decisions e.g Whitley v Chappell.
Define the Golden Rule.
- Modification of the literal rule.
- It looks at the literal rule. Then the courts is allowed to avoid interpretations that would lead to an absurd outcome.
-the courts can only choose between the words and the phrase. If there is only one meaning then it must be taken. - If you use this rule and it leads to a distasteful situation: The golden rule can modify the words of Parliament.
State an AO2 for the Golden Rule.
- Jones v DPP 1962 - in this case Lord Reid argues for a narrow application of the golden rule.
- ” if they are capable of more than one meaning, then you can choose between those meanings, but beyond that you cannot go.”
State another AO2 for the Golden Rule.
- R v Allen 1872 - Section 57of the offences Against The Person Act 1881 which made it an offence to marry whilst one’s original spouse was still alive (and there had been no divorce). The word ‘marry’ can mean to become legally married or ‘go through a ceremony of marriage’. The court decided that using the Act, the word had the second meaning. To do otherwise would have produced an absurd result.
State another AO2 for the Golden Rule.
- Sigsworth 1935.
- a son had murdered his mother. The mother had not made a will, but according to the rules set out in the Administration of Justice Act 1925 her next kin would inherit (who was the son).
- no ambiguity in the meaning of the Act, but the court was not prepared to let a murderer benefit from his crime. So it was held that the literal rule will not apply, the golden rule being used to prevent a repugnant situation.
What are the advantages of the Golden Rule.
- if there are any issues with the literal rule the golden rule can be applied
- it allows the judge to choose the most sensible meaning of a word in an Act
- it provides the most sensible decision in a case.
What are the disadvantages of the Golden Rule.
- Only used in rare occasions.
- Its not possible to predict when the courts will use this rule
- Micheal Zander has described this as a feeble parachute. e.g an escape route that cannot do very much.
Define the Mischief Rule.
-This rule requires the court to look to what the law was before the legislation was passed in order to discover what gap or mischief the legislation was intended to cover.
-The court is then required to interpret the legislation in such a way to ensure that the gap is covered.
- it was discovered through Heydon’s Case 1584
What did the Heydon’s case state about the Mischief Rule.
(4 points)
- what was the common law before making an Act?
- What was the issue in the problem that judges made the law and did not solve?
- What is the issue that Parliament hasn’t solved.
4.What was their true remedy ?
What is the role of Internal and External Aids.
-aids to help the judges with interpretation .
What are internal aids?
-these are matters within the statue itself that may help to make its meaning clearer
-the court can consider a long title or a short title and the preamble, if any.
-Older statues usually have a preamble which sets out Parliament’s purpose in enacting that statue.
-Modern statues either not have a preamble or have a brief one e.g the Theft Act 1968 states it is an act to modernise the law of theft.
What are external aids?
-these are matters outside the act and it has always been accepted that some external sources can help explain the meaning of an Act.
These undisputed sources are:
-previous acts of Parliament on the same topic
-historical setting
-earlier case law
-dictionaries of the time
Originally the courts had very strict rules that other external aids should not be considered. However for the following three aids the court’s attitudes have changed. What are the three main external aids..
-Hansard
-Reports of law reform
-International convections
What is the hansard ?
-It is an official report of what was said in Parliament when the Act was debated
Define the Purposive approach
-Looking at the reasons why the law was passed and interpreting it accordingly.
What is the advantages of the Mischief rule?
-promotes the purpose of the law
-fills in the gaps of the law
-produces a ‘just result’
What are the disadvantages of the Mischief Rule?
-risk of judicial law making - judges are trying to fill in the gap with their own views on how the law should remedy the gap - case Royal college of Nursing v DHSS - shows that judges do not always agree on the use of the mischief rule.
-not as wide as the purposive approach
-limited to looking back at the old law
-can make the law uncertain
What are the advantages of the purposive approach
-leads to justice in individual cases. It has a more broad approach which allows the law to cover more situations than applying words literally.
-allows for new developments in technology - demonstrated by R v Secretary of State, the embryo case explained in section 5.3. If the literal rule had been used in this case , it would have been necessary for Parliament to make a new law to deal with the situation.
-avoids absurd outcomes. Gives judges more option than just using the literal meanings of the words. Allows judges to avoid the literal meanings of words which can cause an absurd outcome.
What are the disadvantages of the purposive approach
-difficult to find Parliament’s intention - Hansard but these give every detail of debates including those MPs who do not agree with the law that was under discussion.
-allows judges to make law
-leads to uncertainty in the law.
