Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

AS Law > Statutory Interpretation > Flashcards

Statutory Interpretation Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Civil Procedure 1L flashcards MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards
1
Q

When is interpretation necessary? (Give 2 reasons)

A

+ Ambiguous Drafting (Dangerous Dogs Act 1998)
+ Unforeseen Developments (RCN v DHSS 1981)
+ Statutes may conflict (definition of the word “child”)
+ Changes in use of Language (Cheeseman v DPP 1990)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What are the 4 Rules of Statutory Interpretation?

A

+ Literal Rule
+ Golden Rule
+ Mischief Rule
+ Purposive Rule

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What is the main principle of the Literal Rule?

A

“The law is interpreted as it is written”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What extrinsic aids can Literal Judges refer to?

A

Only Dictionaries

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What happened in the case of “Whiteley v Chappell 1868”? (Premise and ruling)

A

A man impersonated a recently deceased man in order to vote. A literal judge said the man wasn’t guilty of fraud because dead people literally don’t have a right to vote.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What happened in the case of “Fisher v Bell 1960”? (Premise and ruling)

A

A shopkeeper wasn’t guilty of “offering to sell” knives to underage minors because an “offer to sell” has a certain contractual meaning. Not guilty because a display in a shop window is making an offer to buy.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What happened in the Case of “London Railway Co. V Berriman 1946”? (Premise and Ruling)

A

A man died whilst oiling points on a railway track and his family wanted to claim compensation from his employers. A literal Judge said they couldn’t because his contract only said they could receive compensation if he was killed “relaying or repairing track segments”.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What are some advantages of The Literal Rule?

A

+ Judges show respect for parliament and the separation of powers
+ Quicker to use obvious meaning, therefore law is more efficient
+ Encourages parliamentary draftsmen to be more efficient

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What are some disadvantages of The Literal Rule? (Give 2)

A

+ Can often lead to absurd results and not carry out what parliament intended
+ Fails to recognise that language can be dangerous

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What is the main principle of The Golden Rule?

A

That when the Literal Rule is absurd, the court can choose the lesser absurd interpretation to follow.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What is the “narrow application” of the golden rule?

A

There are 2 meanings and the court chooses which one to follow

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What is the “wider application” of he golden rule?

A

The one meaning of a statute is absurd, so the court modifies the meaning of the statute.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What happened in the case of “Adler v George 1964”? (Premise and ruling)

A

A woman broke the Official Secrets Act 1920 by being an obstruction “in the vicinity of a prohibited area”. Because she was actually in the prohibited area, a Golden Judge said she was guilty, because a literal judge would have said she was not guilty. The statute was changed.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What happened in the case of “Sigsworth 1935”? (Premise and Ruling)

A

A man murdered his mother to inherit her estate because it was supposed to go to her next-of-kin as stated in the Administration of Justice Act 1925. A Golden Judge said that he couldn’t inherit the property because it would have been absurd to allow that in the name of the statute.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What is the main principle in the “Mischief Rule”?

A

That the ruling should “cure the mischief” caused by the crime.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Why do we need statutory interpretation?

A

Because statutes can be vague

17
Q

What are the 4 questions that must be asked when using the Mischief Rule?

A
  1. What was common law before the Statute.
  2. What was wrong with it?
  3. What remedy did parliament pursue?
  4. What was he reason for choosing that remedy?
18
Q

What happened in the case of “Gardiener v Sevenoaks 1950”?

A

A statute made it an offence to store dangerous film on “premesis”. The defendant stored film in a cave. A mischief judge said that the cave was still on the premesis because that was what the statute aimed to prevent.

19
Q

What happened in the case of “Smith v Hughes 1960”?

A

A court tried to convict 6 women for a crime that had to take place “in the street”. One was on a balcony and 5 were behind windows. A mischief Judge still found them guilty of the offence because they were still trying to cause mischief.

20
Q

What is the main premise of the Purposive approach?

A

That judges should look at the purpose of the act to try and prevent mischief.

21
Q

Why do the EU courts prefer the purposive rule over the other rules?

A

Because it is easier to overcome the language barriers created by the other approaches.

22
Q

What was the ruling in the case of “Quintavalle”?

A

A purposive Judge said that cloned embryos have the same rights as naturally created embryos because that is what the purpose of the Human Rights Act 1998 was for.

23
Q

What was the case of “Meah v Roberts”?

A

Where someone sold a boy caustic soda instead of lemonade by mistake. A statute said it was an offence to sell “food or beverages not fit for human consumption”. A purposive judge said it was an offence even though caustic soda didn’t qualify as “food or beverage”.

24
Q

What are the two Intrinsic Aids to Statutory Interpretation?

A

+ To read the statute as a whole

+ Contextual Meaning

25
Q

What is the Ejudsem Generis rule?

A

Where a statute uses a list of words, other words that mean similar things are also assumed to be included

26
Q

What happened in the case of Powell v Kempton Park Racecourse?

A

There was a dispute over whether “house, office, room or other place” included the outside ring at tattersalls race course. It was decreed that the outside ring wasn’t included because all other places were inside.

27
Q

What happened in the case of Allan v Emmerson 1944?

A

The court had to interpret the phrase “theatres and other areas of amusement” and decide if it applied to a funfair. As there was only one word, it was decided that a funfair didn’t apply.

28
Q

What is the “Expression Unius est Exclusio Alterius” rule?

A

Where express reference to one thing implies the exclusion of another

29
Q

What happened in the case of “Tempest v Kilner 1864”?

A

The court had to decide if a statute mentioning “goods, wares, and merchandise” could be applied to stocks. Because it wasn’t listed, he court decided it didn’t apply.

30
Q

What is the “Noscitur a sociis” rule?

A

Where a word draws its meaning from the other words around it

31
Q

What happened in the case of “Bromley v GLC 1982”?

A

The train system wanted to operate a cheap fare system for everyone but the case relied on the word “economic”. The court decided that “economic” meant being run on business lines.

32
Q

What are the extrinsic aids for interpreting statutes?

A 
\+ Interpretation Act 1978
\+ Related Statutes and Law Commission reports
\+ Dictionaries
\+ Explanatory notes
\+ Hansard
33
Q

What is Hansard?

A

A record of parliamentary debate (everything said whilst debating a bill is recorded here)

34
Q

What happened in the case of Davis v Johnson 1979?

A

Lord Denning referred to Hansard but other judges disapproved because he “shouldn’t have been allowed to do it”

35
Q

What happened in the case of Pepper v Hart 1993?

A

It was assumed that Lord Denning could look at Hansard. It became acceptable after this case.

36
Q

What are the 3 necessities for a judge to refer to Hansard?

A

+ The Legislation is ambiguous
+ Statements in Hansard are relevant and clear
+ The statement is made by someone promoting the bill

37
Q

What happened in the case of Sweet v Parsley?

A

The defendant was charged with people taking drugs on her property. Because mens rea was required for it to be an offence, she was discharged.

38
Q

What are the 3 presumptions of interpretation?

A

+ Criminal liability requires mens rea (Sweet v Parsley 1970)
+ A statute does not have retrospective effect
+ A statute only has effect in the UK

AS Law (11 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions