Statutory Interpretation

Question 1

‘Rules’ of statutory interpretation?

Answer 1

Purpose: discover the intention of Parliament where there’s ambiguity

• Literal Rule
• Golden Rule
• Purposive Rule
• Mischief Rule
• Teleological Approach (EU)
• s 3 of the HRA 1998 (Human Rights)

Question 2

Literal Rule?

Answer 2

Fisher v Bell

• the plain, ordinary meaning of the word should be taken
• the Ministers meant to say what they said through the words of the Act

Question 3

Golden Rule?

Answer 3

The literal interpretation should be taken; however, where this leads to an absurdity, the context of the word within the statute should be considered

• River Wear Commissioners (1876): ‘take the whole statute and construe it together’
• focus on internal context

Question 4

Purposive Rule?

Answer 4

The context of the statute should be taken into consideration so as to determine Parliament’s intent to create the Act

• Re Sigsworth: absurdity in the Act stated the deceased’s estate should be succeeded by her son; however, her son had murdered her. Court didn’t want to seem to reward a criminal; therefore, considered that this wasn’t the intention of Parliament to justify not giving him the estate
• focus on external context

Question 5

Teleological Approach?

Answer 5

relates to interpreting EU law

• the ‘spirit of the Act’ should be considered
• social, economic and political implications of the Act should be taken into account

Question 6

HRA 1998, s 3 rule?

Answer 6

relates to interpreting domestic legislation, in that the courts (as public authorities) must interpret all legislation in a way that is compatible with convention rights, ‘in so far as it is possible to do so’

Question 7

Intrinsic Aids?

Answer 7

• Long title
• Short title
• Interpretation section
• Punctuation
• Marginal notes
• Inclusory words and lists

Question 8

Extrinsic Aids?

Answer 8

• Other statutes
• The Interpretation Act 1978
• Dictionaries
• Hansard

Question 9

Secondary Aids?

Answer 9

• ejusdem generis
• expressio unius est exclusio alterius
• noscitur a sociis

Question 10

Hansard?

Answer 10

Where there is ambiguity in the Act, the proposer of the Bill’s statements regarding the Act can be referred to in order to determine their legislative intention (Pepper v Hart). However, the use of Hansard is qualified

1. There must be ambiguity
2. The Minister proposing the bill must have made a statement regarding this provision
3. The Minister’s statements must be clear/must clearly address this provision

Question 11

Ejusdem Generis?

Answer 11

Of the same type/kind/group

• ambiguity in ‘other’: look to the words that came before
• -> e.g. ‘dogs and other animals’: four legs? domestic?
• Massey v Boulden

Question 12

Noscitur a sociis?

Answer 12

Known by its associates

• a word’s meaning can be interpreted by using the surrounding words
• -> look to how it’s used throughout the Act/provision
• McDonald (2014): the word ‘mixing’ limited to a technical meaning because it was surrounded by other technical words in the Act

Question 13

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius?

Answer 13

The expression of one is the exclusion of another
“Where a statute seeks to establish a list of what is covered by its provisions, then anything not expressly included in that list is specifically excluded.”
- in lists, the words listed are those that Parliament meant to include; therefore, other words that are left out are immaterial. No other words should be considered.
- where the list is exhaustive (e..g there’s no etc, or ‘and others’)

Question 14

Mischief Rule?

Answer 14

The court looks at what mischief or defect in the law the Act was trying to rectify or address
Heydon’s Case:
- What was the common law before?
- What was wrong with it, what defect did it not account for?
- What remedy did Parliament intend to provide?
- What was the true reason for the remedy?
–> Gorris v Scott: the court held that the mischief the relevant statute was trying to solve was the spreading of disease amongst livestock en route to Britain, not to allow claims like Gorris’ where sheep had been lost.

Question 15

Stock v Frank Jones (1978) and the literal rule?

Answer 15

The literal rule should only be departed from when

1) There is a clear and gross anomaly
2) Parliament couldn’t have envisaged the anomaly, and had they seen it, they wouldn’t have accepted its presence
3) The anomaly can be removed without taking away from the legislative intent of the Act
4) The language of the statute allows for such a modification

Question 16

Part B: Statutory Interpretation structure?

Answer 16

1) What in the scenario may have been a contravening action: what part of the statute is relevant?
2) Why might this be so?
3) Why might this not be so?: rules and tools of interpretation to consider the possibilities
4) What is likely to be found? What’s most probable?

Question 17

What is a headnote?

Answer 17

A statement of

• material facts
• questions of law arising
• the decision in the case

Question 18

What is a preamble?

Answer 18

Introductory part of the statute

Question 19

Long title and short title?

Answer 19

Long: may be considered but only where there is ambiguity in the Act
Short: mostly descriptive so of no important use