Statutory Interpretation Flashcards
LNER v Berriman
Berrimans husband was oiling points on a track when he was hit by a train and killed. His widow tried to sue LNER for not providing a lookout but the literal words of the law said a lookout must be provided when relaying and preparing, not oiling. Use for literal rule.
DPP v Cheeseman
D was caught masturbating in a public toilet and was found not guilty of a crime because police did not count as passengers under Oxford English Dictionary 1847. Charged under S.28 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847. Use for literal rule.
R v Allen
Allen got married while he was already married to another woman. Accused of bigamy, argued 2nd marriage was illegitimate as you cannot be married twice at the same time. Judge ruled undergoing a marriage ceremony is enough to count. Use for golden rule
Jones v DPP
Explains golden rule as giving judges the ability to choose between multiple definitions of the words used in the law
Re Sigsworth
Sigsworth was in broadmoor mental hospital for killing his mother and he requested to be given her estate as he was her next of kin. Court decided to use golden rule and not allow killer to take estate of the victim
Heydon’s case
Created the mischief rule, stating judges shall ‘make such construction as to suppress the mischief’
Smith v Hughes
Street Offences Act 1959 states it’s illegal to loiter in a street or public place for the purpose of prostitution. Prostitutes stood in windows or on balconies to get around this, ruled law was trying to prevent the mischief of harassment, they were found guilty
Royal College of Nursing (RCN) v DPP
Nurses are not registered medical practitioners, so were technically not allowed to do abortions. They did them anyways and were taken to court. The mischief rule was used and it was interpreted that Parliament were trying to stop back alley abortions, not nurses doing them.
Magor + St Mellons v Newport Corporation
Lord denning and Lord simmons disagree if the purposive approach is good.
LD: “we sit here to find out the intention of parliament and we do that better by filling in the gaps than making nonsense out of literal meanings”
LS: “This is a naked usurpation of the legislative function under the thin guise of interpretation”
Jones v Tower Boot Company
Jones suffered racial and physical abuse at work. The race relations act says that this abuse from employees should be treated as if it was done by the employer. The employer argued that because they weren’t working while doing the abuse they weren’t at work and therefore it’s nothing to do with them
R v Registrar General Ex Parte Smith
D applied for a copy of his birth certificate to find his mother, which he is entitled to do. However, he was in broadmoor mental hospital for the murder of the last woman he found that he thought was his mother. He was denied on the grounds that it was to keep his mother safe
Explain the golden rule
•judges can either choose between possible meanings of the words to find the one most suitable (narrow approach) or invent a new meaning to avoid absurdity (broad approach)
•Judges should begin using the literal meaning of words in an act
•avoids absurdity outcomes, doesn’t respect parliamentary supremacy
•R v Allen (bigamy) OATPA 1861
•Re Sigsworth (next of kin inheritance) (Administrations of Estates Act 1925)
Literal rule
•Judges apply plain ordinary literal meaning of words
•Lord Esher ‘should be followed even if it leads to a manifest absurdity’
•leads to unfair decisions, respects parliamentary supremacy
•LNER v Berriman (oiling points) (Fatal Accidents Act 1846
DPP v Cheeseman (masturbating) (Town Police Clauses Act 1847)
Explain mischief rule
•looks at what Parliament wanted to stop and interprets act to stop it
•Heydons case (4 questions must be asked) (what was the common law before, what mischief was the law not addressing)
•avoids absurdity outcomes, doesn’t respect parliamentary supremacy
•Smith v Hughes (prostitution) (Street Offences Act 1959)
•RCN v DHSS (abortions) ( Abortion Act 1967)
Explain Purposive Approach
•requires judges to look at what parliament intended and to put that intention into effect
•as a result of interpreting European law
•avoids absurdity, doesn’t respect Parliamentary Supremacy
•Jones v TBC (racial abuse) (Race Relations Act)
•R v RG ex parts Smith (birth certificate) (Adoption Act)
Advantage of literal rule (creates certainty)
I- creates certainty
C- it follows the Act strictly, word for word, and so the Acts will always have the same meaning
E- DPP v Cheeseman, the word passenger was taken from the dictionary and so everyone will be viewed under the same definition of passer by
C- it keeps the law fair and consistent and allows lawyers and defendants to know the law and properly prepare for trials
Advantage of literal rule (easy/saves time)
I- easy to use/saves time
C- judges do not need to think about the meaning of words, just apply them as they are
E- DPP v Cheeseman
C- it means ‚swift justice‘ and more cases can be dealt with in less time
Advantage of literal rule (parliamentary supremacy)
I- ensures parliamentary supremacy
C- it follows the exact wording Parliament used and the literal meaning of those words
E- LNER v Berriman, judges stuck to the strict meaning of relaying and repairing and refused to include maintaining because it had not been specified by Parliament
C- unelected judges should not question laws made by the elected body
Advantage of literal rule (respects separation of powers)
I- respects separation of powers
C- judges are merely interpreting the law rather than creating or changing it
E- DPP v Cheeseman, took dictionary meaning rather than changing the meaning
C- judges are doing their constitutional role and not exceeding their powers by making new laws
Disadvantage of the literal rule (causes absurd decisions)
I- causes absurd decisions
C- it follows the words of the Act strictly and may end up being restrictive
E- LNER v Berriman, absurd that the victim was not entitled to a lookout just because he was maintaining rather than repairing, as the danger was the same either way
C- bad decisions will be made due to technicalities and may prevent justice
Disadvantage of literal rule (assumes impossible perfection in drafting)
I- assumes impossible perfection in drafting
C- judges follow the exact words of the act as they are written, even when Parliament have made a mistake
E- LNER v Berriman
C- Parliaments intention isn’t actually fulfilled due to oversights in wording
Disadvantage of the literal rule (doesn’t work well with multiple meanings)
I- doesn’t work well with multiple meanings
C- judges cannot apply two different opposite meanings at the same time
E- R v Allen, marriage two different meanings with two different outcomes
C- make it difficult to actually apply the literal rule and therefore is not so quick or easy to use
Disadvantage of literal rule (judicial creativity)
I- it does not give room for judicial creativity
C- judges will have to use exact wording from the time even if outdated
E- Fatal Accidents Act was over 100 years old at the time of LNER v Berriman but judges had to apply wording to modern case
C- law may not be updated and will require Parliament to spend time tweaking increasing numbers of old Acts rather than bigger problems
Advantage of golden rule ( avoids absurd decisions)
I- avoids absurd decisions
C- judges can change the meanings of words in an Act to ensure they make sense in circumstances
E- R v Allen, judges chose meaning ‚to go through a ceremony‘ to find D guilty
C- justice will be served in cases where there would have been an absurd decision
Advantages of golden rule (true intentions)
I- puts parliaments true intentions into effect
C- judges can change the meaning of the words in an act to make the statute actually do what Parliament wanted
E- Re Sigsworth
C- judges can enforce law to give effect to what Parliament intended
Advantage of golden rule (multiple meanings)
I- applied to words with multiple meanings
C- judges cannot apply choose between different meanings when using the narrow approach
E- R v Allen
C- it fixed the problem with the literal rule and so makes the law quick and easy to interpret
Advantage of golden rule (judicial creativity)
I- allows for judicial creativity
C- judges can change meaning
E- Re Sigsworth
C- saved parliament lots of time updating old laws because judges can work around the problem
Disadvantage of golden rule (creates uncertainty)
I- creates uncertainty
C- all judges will differ in opinions of what is absurd and so may disagree on when or how to change the words in an act
E- Re Sigsworth
C- leads to inconsistent decisions and lawyers/ defendants won’t be able to prepare for case
Disadvantage of golden rule ()
I- erodes parliamentary supremacy
C- judges are allowed to change wording and so are changing the law
E- Re Sigsworth, assumed Parliament meant ‚only if D did not kill his mother, despite it not being written in the act
C- unelected judges should not question laws made by the elected body
Disadvantage of golden rule (narrow approach too flexible)
I- the narrow approach is too flexible
C- judges still have to choose between two set meanings of a word
E- Re Sigsworth, no meaning of the word would have resolved the problem of D getting the inheritance, only changing/ inventing a new meaning would work
C- judges are still very restricted when using narrow approach and may not be able to avoid absurdity
Disadvantage of golden rule (separation of powers)
I- it does not respect separation of powers
C- allows judges to alter the law
E- Re Sigsworth
C- unconstitutional
