Statutory Interpretation Flashcards
Ejusdem Generis
Used when there is an open list of key words I.e. list ends with ‘and any other/such like’ - use the specific key words to understand what they mean, the specific examples will have generated a class - using the specific to understand the general.
Key cases involving ejusdem generis?
Powell v Kempton Racecourse Co [1899] AC 143 (HL).
Concerned betting and whether a racecourse would fall under “No house, office, room or other place shall be opened, kept or used for the purpose of the owner, occupier or keeper thereof … betting with persons resorting thereto”
Court of appeals said that it was not covered by these parameters.
Noscitur a Sociis
Words are known by the company they keep, trying to work out from the list of examples how the words relate and what broader meaning we can give to them.
Key cases involving noscitur a sociis?
Pengelley v Bell Punch Co Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 1055 (CA)
“All floors, steps, passages and gangways, shall be of sound construction and properly maintained and shall, so far as is reasonably practicable, be kept free from any obstruction and from any substance likely to cause persons to slip.”
CA decided that the key words referred to something you walk through and therefore you shouldn’t put things that are obstructive in the way. But edges and walls are not places that you’re supposed to be walking through - majority of paper was put at the edge of the room so their floor didn’t fall within this legislation.
Expressio unius est Exclusio Alterius
Words expressly included, exclude others - if your closed list has expressly stated something it excludes another example.
Key cases involving expressio unius est exclusio alterius?
R v Inhabitants of Sedgley (1831) 109 ER 1068
“shall raise weekly or otherwise by taxation of every occupier of lands, houses, tithes, … coalmines or saleable underwoods” - court decided that limestone mines were did not come under this category.
What is the literal rule?
Idea that you will read the language in the rule literally and take its literal meaning as face meaning
Key cases involving the literal rule?
Duport Steel v Sirs [1980] 1 WLR 142 (HL), 157
Lord Diplock: “Where the meaning of the statutory words is plain and unambiguous it is not for the judges to invent fancied ambiguities as an excuse for failing to give effect to its plain meaning because they themselves consider that the consequence of doing so would be inexpedient, or even unjust or immoral”
Which case highlights the problems of the literal rule?
Whiteley v Chappell (1868) 4 QB 147 - defendant impersonated a dead person and was found not guilty because the legislation covers only those who are entitled to vote - as the dead person was not, there was no crime.
What is the golden rule?
We must work out if the literal rule would lead to absurdity, if it does we trigger the golden rule. If this is the case then we must interpret the issue at hand to ensure that the result makes sense.
What cases involved the golden rule?
River Wear Commissioners v Adamson [1877] 2 AC 743 (HL), 764-765
Lord Blackburn - “we are to take the whole statute together, and construe it all together, giving the words their ordinary signification, unless when so applied they produce an inconsistency, or an absurdity, or an inconvenience so great as to convince the court that the intention could have not been to use them in their ordinary signification”
Have to look at what comes before and after the provisions that we seek to interpret - look at the words within their broader context.
What is the Mischief Rule?
where we seek to fill the gaps where parliament haven’t been as clear as they think and ensure that we have communicated what parliament tried to.
What are the 4 steps necessary for the Mischief rule?
Heydon’s Case (1584) 76 ER 637:
- What was the law before the Act.
- What was the mischief and defect for which the law did not provide?
- What remedy has Parliament had to resolve the issue?
- The role of the judge is to ‘always make such construction as shall suppress the mischief’
In which case was the mischief rule important?
RCN v DHSS [1981] AC 800 (HL)
“ … a person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner …”
We need to clarify what is meant by a “registered medical practitioner” - does a nurse fall within this remit as they can administer drugs to cause an abortion. Court took this to mean that the Abortion Act was trying to ensure that abortions were given in a safe medical environment.
What is the purposeful approach?
Finding out what the legislation sought to achieve - what is the purpose of the law?
