Statutory Interpretation

Question 1

Purposive approach

Answer 1

DEFINITION
- the judges are deciding what they believe parliament was trying to achieve - what was the purpose of the act?
- R v Registrar General, ex parte Smith 1990
WHAT THIS MEANS
- judges are required to consider the context in which the law was created - what were the concerns of government and parliament at the time
EXTERNAL AIDS
- one of the best ways for judges to discover this is to use external AIDS
- Hansard, Law Commission reports
ARGUMENT
- Lord Denning believed the purposive approach is the best way to move forward, whilst Lord Scarman fully believed that judges should apply the Act word for word
MAIN USE
- in European Law, the purposive approach is used as many words do not have direct translations into other languages

Question 2

Literal rule

Answer 2

DEFINITION
- giving words their plain, ordinary meaning
- historically, the dominant method of interpreting law
- still today is the starting point for interpreting legislation in English law
EXTENT
- will be applied even if it leads to absurdity
- Whiteley v Chappell 1868
JUSTIFICATION
- respects parliamentary sovereignty

Question 3

Mischief rule

Answer 3

DEFINITION
- developed in 1584 and judges must make four considerations 
- Heydons Case 1584
CONSIDERATIONS 
1. What was the law before?
2. What was the mischief for which law did not provide?
3. What would parliament want?
4. Why would they want this?
ROLE OF THE JUDGES
- to look at the act and interpret what the intention was
- Smith v Hughes 1960
SIMILARITY
- to the purposive approach

Question 4

Golden rule

Answer 4

DEFINITION
- modification of the literal rule and has two variations
NARROW
- chooses between the best of two alternate meanings of ambiguous words
- R v Allen 1872
WIDE
- where words only have one meaning but judges can modify a word to avoid an absurd outcome
- are Sigsworth 1935

Question 5

Use of Hansard

Answer 5

DEFINITION
- Hansard is the official reports of everything that is said in parliament and therefore includes records of debates from when the Act was created
- as it includes detail not mentioned in the Act it is an external aid
HISTORY
- traditionally not used as use of Hansard makes a case expensive and time consuming
- Davis v Johnson 1979
USE
- ban was lifted in 1993
- Pepper v Hart 1993
JUSTIFICATION
- if the words of an Act are unclear then statements by the promoter or Minister usually clear them up

Question 6

Difficulties of judges trying to find parliamentary intention when interpreting acts

Answer 6

WHY THERE IS A PROBLEM
- issues such as broad terms, ambiguity, changes in the use of language and mistakes
- Cheeseman shows perfectly the problem of changing language
INTENT
- difficult to pinpoint parliamentary intent and therefore often realises on extrinsic aids
- and this is usually time consuming and costly
EXTENT
- there are limitations set out in Pepper v Hart
- and there is the potential risk of judicial law making, which is undemocratic
DISAGREEMENT
- even judges themselves cannot agree on how intent should be found, for example Lord Denning suggests judges should be allowed to use as many aids as they need
- whereas Lord Scarman suggests judges should just stick to the words of the Act

Question 7

Advantages and disadvantages of mischief rule

Answer 7

FLEXIBILITY
- avoids some of the problems involved with the literal rule and should avoid absurdity or injustice
- however, absurdity is different to different judges and could lead to judicial law making
HOW IT WORKS
- helps achieve parliamentary intent
- but finding this intent through the use of extrinsic aids is costly and time consuming
INTENT
- should help achieve parliamentary intent
- but this intent is not always clear and it relies on a preamble in the act which is no longer included

Question 8

Advantages and disadvantages of the golden rule

Answer 8

FLEXIBILITY
- avoids some of the problems involved with the literal rule and should avoid absurdity or injustice
- however, absurdity is different to different judges
CHECK ON LITERAL RULE
- the golden rule should provide a check of the strictness of the literal rule
- however, it hasn’t and Zander QC calls it an “unpredictable safety net”
PARLIAMENTARY SUPREMACY
- could lead to judicial law making and is therefore undemocratic
- however, judges are not given complete freedom over the interpretation of an Act