Statutory Interpretation Flashcards
Statutory Interpretation
-The process by which courts interpret and apply legislation.
-In many cases there is some ambiguity in the words of the statute that must be resolved by the judge.
-There are a number of different aims in this process. E.g. To apply the intention of Parliament or to promote justice.
The Literal Rule
-Should be the first rule applied by judges
-The words of the statute are given their natural or ordinary meaning and applied without the judge seeking to put a gloss on the words or seek to make sense of the statute.
Fisher v Bell
-Goods on display in shops are not offers to sell but invitations to buy.
R v Harris
-The act did not follow the wording within the statute, so the conviction was quashed.
Berriman v North London Railway Co
-The act did not follow the wording within the statute as he was maintaining not repairing
The Golden Rule
-May be applied where an application of the literal rule would lead to an absurdity. The courts may then apply a secondary meaning of the words used.
-The narrow approach + The broad approach
The narrow approach
-Some words are capable of more than one meaning.
-Adler v George: The courts interpreted ‘in the vicinity’ as meaning ‘in or in the vicinity of’.
The Broad approach
-Some words only have one clear meaning, Judges will modify the words used to avoid injustices.
-Re Sigworth: The courts did not allow the son to inherit the estate, so they wrote into the act.
The Mischief Rule
-Is the oldest of the rules, was established in Heydon’s Case 1584
-Judges are supposed to construe statutes by seeking the true intent of the makers of the Act, which is presumed to be pro bono publico, or intent for the public good.
-The role of the judge is to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy.
What to consider when applying the Mischief Rule
1.What was the common law before making the Act?
2.What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide?
3.What was the remedy Parliament passed to cure the mischief?
4.What was the true reason for the remedy?
Smith v Hughes
- Wording of the act would not prevent the mischief that parliament were trying to avoid.
Elliot v Grey
- Mischief rule applied as the aim was to remove uninsured drivers.
Corkery v Carpenter
- Mischief they tried to avoid was danger to road users due to an intoxicated driver.
The Purposive Approach
- used in the European court of justice
-The literal rule would be of little use in the European courts since there are several languages in operation.
-Domestic judges are required to apply the purposive approach whenever applying EU law.
