Statutory Interpretation

Question 1

Why could parliamentary meaning be unclear?

Answer 1

A broad term: ‘dangerous dogs act 1991’ (any dog of the known type of pit bull terrier- confusion over type. Decided in Brock v DPP (1993) queens bench type had wider meaning than breed, cover those who have characteristics of the dog)
Ambiguity: multiple meanings
Drafting error: original bill made an error not noticed by P or different wordings in different sections if acts brought together (ss 18&20 offenders against person, 18’cause’ 20 ‘inflict’ but ruled to mean same in R v Burstow (1997)
Developments: new tech produced and an act of P doesn’t cover it
Language change: cheeseman v DPP (1990) police weren’t passengers as they weren’t in loo for normal reason, were to investigate acts committed

Question 2

What are the three rules judges can use

Answer 2

Literal
Golden
mischief

Question 3

What does the literal rule mean, give some case examples

Answer 3

A rule of statutory interpretation that gives words plain or ordinary meaning. See Whitely V Chappell (1868) (voter impersonation found not guilty as person who he attempted to impersonate dead therefore no right to vote)
(Can lead to absurd decisions as seen above or harsh ones as seen as below)
London and north eastern railway co v Berriman (1946)
Railway worker killed whilst maintenance work oiling track. Widow couldn’t claim compensation as he wasn’t relaying or repairing as act said (Fatal Accidents Act)

Question 4

What is the golden rule

Answer 4

A modification of the literal rule and avoids an absurd interpretation

Question 5

What are some cases using the golden rule

Answer 5

Adler V George (1965): offence to obstruct HMF in vicinity of prohibited place, argued not guilty as literally wording of act didn’t apply to those in place. Divisional courts found guilty as would be absurd if those inside place was not guilty but those outside were.

Re Sigsworth (1935): son killed mother and wanted to claim estate as usually would’ve gone to next of kin in Administration of Justice Act 1925. Golden rule use to avoid repugnant result (son getting mother’s estate)

Question 6

What is the mischief rule

Answer 6

A rule of statutory interpretation that looks back to gap in previous law and interprets act to cover the gap

Question 7

What cases use the mischief rule

Answer 7

Smith V Hughes (1960): no women had been in the streets, one on balconies and rest in half open windows to attract men by calling them or tapping on window. Technically not guilty as not in street but found guilty as the act was to clean up the streets and they were still soliciting by calling to people walking along streets

Eastbourne borough council v Stirling (2000): taxi driver charged for plying for hire in street without a license. Vehicle was parked in taxi rank on station forecourt and not a street. Found guilty as although taxi was on private land, he was likely to get customers from the street. On all fours with Smith V Hughes (1960)

Question 8

What’s the purposive approach

Answer 8

Looks for the purpose of Parliament and interprets the law to ensure that purpose

Question 9

What’s a case in the purposive approach

Answer 9

R (quintavelle) v sec of state for health(2003)
Act stated embryo meant a lie human embryo where human fertilisation has been complete. Embryo created by cell nuclear replacement so no fertilisation. Purposive approach: P could not have intended to distinguish between embryos so Act applied

Question 10

Advantages of literal approach

Answer 10

Leaves law making to P

Law more certain

Question 11

Disadvantage to literal approach

Answer 11

Assume every act perfectly crafted
Words have multiple meanings
Potential for unjust results or absurd decisions

Question 12

Advantages to purposive approach

Answer 12

Leads to Justice in individual cases
Broad approach covering more situations
Allows for new tech

Question 13

Disadvantages to purposive approach

Answer 13

Leads to judicial law making
Can make law uncertain
Difficult to discover P intention

Question 14

What aids can be given to help judges interpret law

Answer 14

Intrinsic and extrinsic aids

Question 15

What are intrinsic aids

Answer 15

Matters within the statute that make the meaning clearer, ie preamble, long title and short title. (Older statues usually have a preamble which sets out what the statues about) Modern ones don’t really have one/have a short one is The Theft Act 1968 states the act is to modernise law of theft.

Some other acts have an interpretation section in them ( s 4 (1) of theft act states property includes money and all other property deal or personal including things in action and other intangible property)

Headings and schedules are also useful

Question 16

What are extrinsic aids

Answer 16

Matters outside the act that might help

Question 17

Undisputed sources of extrinsic aid?

Answer 17

Previous acts of Parliament in same topic
Historical setting
Case law
Dictionaries of time (as words change over time)

Question 18

What are the three main external aids where attitudes have changed to their use

Answer 18

Hansard (official report of what parliament said during debates on Act)
Reports of law reform bodies like law commission which led to passing act
International conventions/regulations/directives implemented by English legislation

Question 19

What was the stance on Hansard pre1992

Answer 19

Couldn’t be used (lord Denning tried to attack this in Davis V Johnson (1979) which involved interpretation of Domestic Violence and Martimonial Proceedings Act 1976, admitting he had read Hansard before the decision, saying that they(if Hansard isn’t looked at) ‘should grope about in the dark for the meaning of an act without switching on the light. I do not accede to this view’ HoL disapproved by saying ‘such material is unreliable guide to meaning of what’s enacted’

Question 20

What was the stance on Hansard after 1993

Answer 20

HoL relaxed rules and said it could be used. (In pepper v Hart (1993) 7 judges heard instead of 5 including lord chancellor who was only one to disagree with Hansard) majority ruled it could be consulted in cases where ‘legislation is ambiguous or obscure or leads to absurdity, material relied on consists of one or more statements by minister or Bill promoter or if the statements relied on are clear’ (said by Lord Browne Wilkinson)

Question 21

When’s the only time a wider use of Hansard can be used

Answer 21

Where court is considering an act that introduced an international convention or EU directive into English law. Pointed out by Queen bench divisional court in Three Rivers District Council and others v Bank of England (no.2) (1996)

Question 22

When were law reforms able to be cited and looked at and considered by courts

Answer 22

Black clawson case in 1975, when accepted that such a report should be looked into to discover the mischief or gap in law which the legislation based on the report was designed to deal with. In Law Comm report 2014-15, pointed out Law comm work has been cited in 404 English cases

Question 23

What’s the impact of EU law on statutory interpretation

Answer 23

EU law uses purposive approach, interpreting national law in light and aim of EU law, and has made our judges more ready to use purposive approach. EU CoJ ruled in Marleasing case (1992) that this rule included interpreting national law in aim of Eu law

Question 24

What was the effect of human rights act 1998 on statutory interpretation

Answer 24

Legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the rights in the EU convention on human rights (Mendoza v ghaidan or Fisher v bell)

Question 25

Advantages and dis of literal rule

Answer 25

\+
Follows P wording 
Prevents unelected judges making law
Law certainty
Easier to predict how judges will interpret law 

-
Not all acts perfectly drafted
Words multiple meanings
Unfair or unjust decisions

Question 26

+ and - of golden rule

Answer 26

\+
Respects P word 
Allows judges to be sensible 
Avoids worst issues of literal rule 
-
Used in limited situations 
Not possible to predict when it’ll be used 
A feeble parachute (zander)

Question 27

+ and - of mischief rule

Answer 27

\+
Promotes purpose of law 
Fills law gap
Produced just result 
-
Risk of judicial law making 
Not as wide as purposive approach 
Limited to looking back at old law 
Law uncertainty

Question 28

+ and - of purposive approach

Answer 28

\+
Leads to justice in individual cases 
Allows for tech developments
Avoids absurdity 
-
Difficult to find p intentions 
Allows judges to make law 
Leads to law uncertainty