Statutory Interpretation Flashcards
Statutory interpretation
Where judges give a meaning to the words of an act of parliament when they’re delivering judgement in court
The literal rule
The judge reads the statute as a whole, putting the words into context. The words are given their plain, ordinary grammatical meaning regardless of the outcome. (Whitely v Chappell) (fisher v bell)
(Whitely v Chappell)
D charged under the act when it made it an offence to impersonate someone entitled to vote. D impersonated a dead man and argued that the dead man was not entitled to drink. D was not guilty as the literal rule meaning of the words were applied.
(Fisher v bell)
Shopkeeper displayed a flick knife in his shop with a price tag on it. The restrictions of offensive weapons act 1969 made it an offence suck flick knifes for sale. Under contract law goods displayed in shops are not offers but invitations to treat. Held D was not guilty as literal rule applied to the offence and shop keeper has not committed an offence.
Literal rule advantages
Follows words used by parliament, makes the law more certain, respects parliamentary sovereignty-precise words of act, respects separation of powers
Literal rule disadvantages
Rule assumes every act is perfectly worded, when law drafted not always possible to cover every situation parliament intended, words may have more than one meaning, demands unrealistic perfection of wording from draft men
The golden rule
Looks at the literal meaning of words but the judge is then allowed to avoid an interpretation that would lead to an absurd result.
The golden rule - narrow approach
Court chooses a possible meaning of the words bit if there is only one meaning then that must be given (R v Allen)
The golden rule - broad approach
If a clear meaning of the words would lead to a repugnant result, the judge will modify the meaning of the words (sigswoth)
(R v Allen)
D attempted to marry the niece of his first wife whilst still married. Not a valid marriage due o the close relationship of the 2 women. Charged under S57 OAPA 1861offence to get married before previous one ended. D argued he couldn’t be charged as the marriage was void. Held: used narrow approach and decided shall marry to be interpreted as going through a ceremony so D was guilty
(Sigsworth)
A son had murdered his mother who made a will which meant the son would inherit her state. Was ambiguity in the act but the court decided to not let a murderer benefit from a crime so the broad approach was used. Held: court wrote into the act that the D was not entitled to inherit where they had killed the deceased.
The golden rule advantages
Respects exact word of parliament, except in limited situations. Narrow approach allows judges to choose the most sensible meaning, in cases where literal rule would provide repugnant situations
The golden rule disadvantages
Limited in its use: only used on rare occasions and not always possible to predict when the courts will use this law, micheal zander described it as a feeble parachute=an escape route but it cannot do very much
The mischief rule
The judge looks at the gap in the law before the act was passed and interprets the words to cover the gap and deal with the mischief. The rules come from (Hendon’s) case. (Smith v Hughes) (royal college of nursing v DHSS)
(Hendon’s) case
- What was the common law before the making of the act? 2. What was the mischief and detect for which the common law did not provide? 3. What was the remedy parliament gave? 4. The true reason for the remedy
(Smith v Hughes’s)
The Ds were prostitutes who had been charged under the street offences act 1959 which made it an offence to solicit in the a public place. The postitutes were soliciting from private premises in windows or on balconies so old be seen by the public. Held: the court applied the mischief rule holding that the activities of the Ds were in the mischief of the act was aimed at even though under a literal interpretation they would be in a private place.
(Royal college of nursing v DHSS)
The college oof nursing brought an action challenging the legality of the involvement of nurses carrying out abortions.the OAPA act 1861 makes it an offence for any person t carry out an abortion. The abortion act 1967 provided that it would be an absolute defence for a medically registered practitioner to carry out abortions. Held it was legal for the nurses to carry out such abortions. The act was aimed at doing away with backstreet abortions where no medical care was available. The actions of the nurses were therefore outside the mischief.
The mischief rule advantages
Promotes the purpose of the law: judges look at gaps and produce a just result, law commission prefers this rule: recommends should be the only rule used in statutory interpretation
The mischief rule disadvantages
May lead to uncertainty: difficult to interpret, risk of judicial law when rule used, split decision(royal college of nursing v DHSS): shows senior judges don’t always agree with this rule
The purposive approach
Can be regarded as an extension of the mischief rule. The court is not just looking to see what the gap was in the old law it is making a decision as to what they felt parliament ment to achieve. (R v registrar general ex parte smith) (jones v tower boot co)
(R v registrar general ex parte smith)
Under the adoption act 197, an adopted person over 18 could apply for a copy of his birth certificate. Smith applied in the correct manner. The problem. Was he was convicted of 2 murders and detained from suffering from a psychosis illness. It was suggested he wanted to find his real mother to kill her. Held: HOL used purposive approach information not given as parliament could not have intended to promote a serious crime.
(Jones v tower boot co)
Young black worker was physically and verbally abused at work. Sued employers argued they where responsible for there actions, employer argued the abuse was not part of the job and outside course of employment. held: COA ruled using purposive approach parliaments intent to eliminate workplace discrimination. Employers were held liable.
The purposive approach advantages
Judges can take into account new technologies, judges can fill in any gaps left by parliament, justice has been achieved-‘just decisions’ (jones tower boot)
The purposive approach disadvantages
Undemocratic: judges interpretations law, time consuming: finding what parliament meant, litigation expensive and uncertain: don’t know till final judgement if courts use this approach
Aids to interpretation
When the court are deciding what an act of parliament means they may look foe help with either intrinsic or extrinsic aids.
Intrinsic aids
Judges can use certain items within the statue to help make the meaning of some of the words clearer
Intrinsic aids - long title and short title
Judges will usually consider the long title to help them understand the short title
Intrinsic aids - preamble
Preamble that sets out parliaments purpose in enacting statue brief preamble
Intrinsic aids - long title
Explain briefly. Parliaments intentions
Intrinsic aids - headings
Before a group of sections
Intrinsic aids - schedules
Attached to act
Intrinsic aids - marginal notes
Explaining different sections, helpful comments put in by printer
Intrinsic aids - interpretative section
Statement of principle, encourage/help use of purposive approach
Extrinsic aids
these are items outside an act which may help a judge to find the meaning.of words in the act
Extrinsic aids - pre legislative documents
Green paper, white paper, law commission reports, reports of law reform bodies
Extrinsic aids - previous acts
On same topic
Extrinsic aids - dictionaries
At the time the act was passed
Extrinsic aids - academic books
Topics
Impact of EU law
Most European countries prefer the purposive approach when interpreting their own legislation. Encourages English courts to also use it
Impact os the human rights act 1998
S3 human rights act 1998-legislation must be read and given effect which is compatible with the European convention on human rights. Only applies when human rights is an issue. (Godin-mendooza v Ghaidan)
(Godin-Mendooza v Ghaidan)
Dispute over same sex couple living together had the same rights as unmarried couple under the rent act 1977. The act stated his or her husband was interpreted to mean as if they were his or her wife or husband. A previous HOL decision this did not include same sex couples. Held in order to be compliant with the ECHR allowed same sex couples to have the same rights as unmarried heterosexual couples.
