Statutory Interpretation Flashcards
Statutory interpretation
How judges interpret the language used in acts of parliament so that they can be sure what parliament intended. There is no obligation for judges to interpret an Act using any of the following guidelines unless a precedent is established by a higher court.
Why might interpretation be necessary?
1) A term used in an act may be too broad - can lead to lack of consistency in how it’s used by judges.
2) A term used in an act can have more than one meaning, which is ambiguous.
3) A drafting error can take place when the act gets written down.
4) Technological developments over time means that the wording used when acts were first drafting now need modernising and updating.
Rules of Statutory Interprentation
- Literal rule
- Golden rule
- Mischief rule
Literal rule
The wording in the Acts is interpreted in an exact, precise way regardless of the problems that may stem from this. The main advantage of using this rule is that it respects Parliament’s sovreignity and allows for high consistency in application. A disadvantage is that an absurd outcome can come about which can undermine the public’s faith in justice.
Literal rule - case
Whitely v Chapell - the accused impersonated a dead person to attempt to vote in an election. Electoral malpractice law states it is an offence to ‘impersonate any person entitled to vote at an election’. The accused was aqcuitted, dead can’t vote.
Golden rule
The Golden Rule allows judges to modify the meaning of particular words. Applied narrowly, judges may choose between 2 possible meanings of the word. Applied broadly, judges can aknowledge the multiple meanings behind a word and choose which they accept. One advantage is that it helps prevent absurdities. One problem exists in interprenting what an absurdity means; it’s a subjective term.
Golden rule - case
Adler v George - Under the Offical Secrets Act 1920, it was an offence to ‘obstruct a member of the Armed Forces in the vicinity of a prohibited place’. D argued that through being in the prohibited place rather thn ‘in the vicinity’, no crime was committed. The application of the Golden Rule allowed for a guilty verdict.
Mischief rule
Provides an even greater flexibility to judges than the Golden Rule as they interpret Acts of Parliament. It is recognised that as an Act is introduced, certain ‘gaps’ in what law covers may appear, increasing the chance of an absurd result. This rule allows judges to cover the gap by re-interprenting the Act in such a way as to cover the ‘mischief’ in question. One advantage of this rule is that it provides judges with the ability to respond to ‘loopholes’ in the law and to subsequently close them. A disadvantage is that in allowing judges to close the gaps themselves, they risk the sovereignity of Parliament.
Mischief rule - case
Smith v Hughes - This involved the considering of an appeal, where 6 women argued that by not soliciting ‘in the street’, but rather a window or balcony, they could not be guilty. The Mishchief Rule was applied and allowed the appeal to be dismissed.
The Purposive Approach
Provides judges with the most flexibility in interpreting Acts of Parliament. This approach allows judges to look more deeply into ‘Parliament’s intention’ when Acts were put together. This is highly subjective but seeks to maximise the chances of a fair, just outcome. European law encourages this approach, since it allows judges across member nations to interpret the law fairly, especially where language differences might result in the law being mis-interpreted across different countries. Critics point out that this provides too much autonomy for judges, risking Parlimentary sovereignty being undermined.
Support for judges interpreting Acts of Parliament
- Internal aids
- External aids
Internal aids
- Acts contain a preamble and/or introduction which can be very helpful
- Acts can include supporting, explanatory notes which provide greater detail on what Parliament’s intention is
- Acts can contain a glossary of key terms
- Grammar used within the Act can be infered in ways to understand the greater detail of what Parliament’s intention is
External aids
- Previous Acts relating to the same topic can be scrutinised
- Avaliable, historical materials which provide information on the broader context of an Act can be helpful in allowing judges to interpret accurately
- Dictionaries, legal textbooks written at a time when an Act is created can provide clarity
- Hansard is a online, offical report on all Parlimentary debates that have taken place prior to an Act becoming law. It records what was said during a debate and who said it
