Statutory Interpretation Flashcards
Why could parliamentary meaning be unclear?
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
What are the three rules judges can use
Literal
Golden
mischief
What does the literal rule mean, give some case examples
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)
What is the golden rule
A modification of the literal rule and avoids an absurd interpretation
What are some cases using the golden rule
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)
What is the mischief rule
A rule of statutory interpretation that looks back to gap in previous law and interprets act to cover the gap
What cases use the mischief rule
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)
What’s the purposive approach
Looks for the purpose of Parliament and interprets the law to ensure that purpose
What’s a case in the purposive approach
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
Advantages of literal approach
Leaves law making to P
Law more certain
Disadvantage to literal approach
Assume every act perfectly crafted
Words have multiple meanings
Potential for unjust results or absurd decisions
Advantages to purposive approach
Leads to Justice in individual cases
Broad approach covering more situations
Allows for new tech
Disadvantages to purposive approach
Leads to judicial law making
Can make law uncertain
Difficult to discover P intention
What aids can be given to help judges interpret law
Intrinsic and extrinsic aids
What are intrinsic aids
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
What are extrinsic aids
Matters outside the act that might help
Undisputed sources of extrinsic aid?
Previous acts of Parliament in same topic
Historical setting
Case law
Dictionaries of time (as words change over time)
What are the three main external aids where attitudes have changed to their use
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
What was the stance on Hansard pre1992
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’
What was the stance on Hansard after 1993
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)
When’s the only time a wider use of Hansard can be used
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)
When were law reforms able to be cited and looked at and considered by courts
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
What’s the impact of EU law on statutory interpretation
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
What was the effect of human rights act 1998 on statutory interpretation
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)
Advantages and dis of literal rule
\+ 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
+ and - of golden rule
\+ 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)
+ and - of mischief rule
\+ 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
+ and - of purposive approach
\+ 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
