Statutory Interpretation Flashcards
What might make statute unclear
Broad term, ambiguity, drafting errors, inventions/technology, changes in use of language
Four rules of interpretation
Literal rule
Golden rule
Mischief rule
Purposive approach
The literal rule
The literal rule requires judges to apply the literal, ordinary, dictionary meanings of words even if they lead to ‘manifest absurdity’
Lord Esher: “if the words of an Act are clear, you must follow them even if they lead to manifest absurdity”
LNER v Berriman
Berriman looking points on the train line when he was hit and killed as no lookout had been provided. Fatal Accidents Act 1846 says a lookout must be provided whenever a railway worker is ‘repairing or relaying’ a track. Court said piling was maintenance and not repairing or relaying. Therefore LNER did not have to provide a lookout and were not liable.
DDP v Cheeseman
D was said to be masturbating in a public toilet. He was charged with exposing himself to passengers in a street, contrary to the Town Police Clauses Act 1847.
Toilet was said to be a street, but ‘passengers’ was defined in the 1847 dictionary as anyone passing by through for its ordinary purpose. As the police were there for a specific reason other than toilets ordinary use, they were not technically passengers and so D was found not guilty
Advantage of literal rule- provides certainty within the law
Literal rule creates certainty because it follows the Act strictly word for word so the Act will always have the same meaning.
Cheeseman, word passenger was taken from the dictionary and so everyone will be viewed under the same sedition of ‘passenger’
Good because it keeps the law fair and consistent and allows lawyers and defendants to know the law and properly prepare for trials
Advantage of literal rule- saves Judge’s time
This is because judges do not need to think about the meaning of words, just apply them as they are
Cheeseman, the judge simply had to find the definition of passenger in the dictionary and then decide if the police fit the description
Good because it means ‘swift justice’ and more cases can be dealt with in less time
Advantage of literal rule- respects parliamentary supremacy
The literal rule ensures parliamentary supremacy because it follows the exact wording parliament used and the literal meaning of those words
LNER v Berriman, judges stuck to the strict meaning of relaying and repairing and refused to include maintaining because it had not been specific in Parliament
Parliamentary supremacy is good because it is parliaments job, not a judge’s to make the law due to them being elected and representing society
Advantage of the literal rule- respects separation of powers
This is because judges are merely interpreting the law rather than making it changing it
Cheeseman judges merely took the dictionary meaning of the words rather than changing the meaning or wording
Because it means judges are doing their constitutional role and not exceeding their powers
Disadvantage of literal rule- leads to absurdity
Follows words straight from the Act strictly and may end up being restrictive.
LNER v Berriman
It was absurd that the victim was not entitled to a lookout just because he was maintaining rather than repairing, as the danger was the same either way.
Because it means bad decisions will be made due to technicalities and may prevent justice
Disadvantages of literal rule- doesn’t apply to words with multiple meanings
Because some words have more than one meaning.
R V Allen
Marriage had two meanings, at the time, which could be taken.
Because it could make it difficult to actually apply the literal rule and therefore is not really quick or easy to use.
Disadvantage of the literal rule- assumes perfection in drafting
Because judges take the wording exactly out the Act, even when parliament have made a mistake.
LNER V Berriman
Only ‘repairing and relaying’ entitles employees to lookout. Missed out maintaining that had the same risk. Clearly not what parliament wanted.
Because it means Parliament’s intention isn’t actually fulfilled and it leads to absurd decisions which parliament didn’t intend
Disadvantage of literal rule- does not allow for judicial creativity
Because judges will have to use the exact same definition from the time even if it’s outdated.
LNER V Berriman
Fatal accidents act was 100 years old by the time of the case. Judges had to apply old wording on a modern case.
Because the law may not be updated and will require parliament to spend time tweaking increasing numbers of old Acts rather than bigger problems.
Briefly explain how golden rule works
Start by using literal rule and finding out literal meanings of words in statute. If using them will produce an absurd or unjust result, they have two options. Narrow or broad approach
Golden rule- narrow approach
If a word or phrase has two or more possible meanings, judge may choose meaning most appropriate to fit the case. (Can not invent new meanings)
Golden rule- broad approach
When words have 1 meaning which will lead to absurdity, the court can modify words of statute
Case showing narrow approach
R v Allen
D charged with bigamy for trying to marry a second woman. Offences Against the Person Act 1861 means he can’t be married to another woman whilst being married to another. “Married” can mean to be legally married or to have had a wedding ceremony. Court chose to use the meaning of having a ceremony as he couldn’t have technically been ‘legally’ married again. Therefore D was found guilty
Case showing broad approach
Re Sigsworth
Sigsworth killed his mother who didn’t leave a will and tried to claim inheritance through Administration of Estates Act 1925, which states the ‘issue’/next of kin would inherit. The court didn’t want him to benefit from his crime so they assumed the act meant it goes to the next of kin unless they killed the deceased. Denied the inheritance
Explain how mischief rule works
Identify the mischief/problem they want to solve and what parliament wanted to stop. Interpret the statute to stop the mischief
Mischief rule, Heydon’s case to show guidelines
What was common law before act was made?
What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide?
What was the remedy parliament created to cure the mischief?
What was the reason behind the remedy?
Judges should make such construction as shall surprise the mischief and advance remedy
Case for mischief rule
Smith V Hughes
D were prostitutes behind a window and on a balcony of private residence trying to entice people on the street. Street Offences Act 1959 made it a crime to be on streets or public place for the purposes of prostitution. As they were on private property, not a street or public place. Stop the mischief of members of public being harassed by prostitutes on streets. Court said guilty- didn’t matter where the prostitutes literally were, matters is causing illegal consequence on the street
Advantage of golden rule- avoids absurdity
Because judges can change the meaning of words in an Act so it makes sense in the circumstances.
R v Allen
It would be absurd to define marry as ‘legally marry’ as it would be impossible to ever commit bigamy.
Good because justice is still being served in cases where if the literal rule was applied it would have led to an absurd decision
Advantage of golden rule- puts Parliament’s intention into practice
Judges can change meaning of words in an Act to carry out what Parliament intended.
Re Sigsworth
Unlikely parliament would want D to benefit from killing his mother, so the courts were able to prevent this from happening despite the wording.
This is good because judges can enforce the law to give effect to what parliament wanted
Advantage of the golden rule- applies to words with multiple meanings
Judges can choose between different meanings when using narrow approach
R v Allen
Marriage could mean ‘legally married’ or to ‘go through a ceremony’ the court were able to choose the second meaning to avoid an absurd result.
Good because it fixes the problem with the literal rule in these situations and so makes the law quick and easy to interpret
Advantage of golden rule- allows judicial creativity
If words of an Act will not achieve justice, judges can change the meaning of the words.
Re Sigsworth
Court able to prevent someone benefitting from a murder by changing the meaning of the literal words in the Act, rather than always allowing inheritance to go to the next of kin.
Good because it saved Parliament from spending lots of time updating old laws because judges can work around any problems in wording
Disadvantage of golden rule- creates uncertainty
Because all judges will differ in their opinions of what is absurd and so may disagree on when or how to change the words in the Act.
Re Sigsworth
Some judges may not have thought that D getting his inheritance was an absurd decision and so may have stuck with the literal rule
Because it leads to inconsistent decisions and lawyers and defendants will be unable to prepare properly for their cases
Disadvantage of golden rule- goes against parliamentary supremacy
Because all judges are allowed to change the wording of an Act and so are clearly changing the law from how Parliament wrote it
Re Sigsworth
Court assumed Parliament meant only if D did not kill his mother, even though that was not written in the act
Because it is Parliament’s job, not judges’ to make the law due to them being elected and representing society. Therefore, the golden rule gives a lot of undemocratic power to judges
Disadvantage of the golden rule- narrow approach is inflexible
Because judges still have to choose between two set meanings of a word
Re Sigsworth
No meaning of words could have resolved the problem of D getting inheritance, only changing/inventing new meaning would work
Because judges are still restricted when using narrow approach and still may not be able to avoid absurdity
Disadvantage of golden rule- separation of powers
Allows judges to alter the law/wording in the act
Re Sigsworth
Judges chose to invent new meaning for when someone should get their inheritance, rather than taking the law how it was literally wrote
Because it is not meant to be judge’s role to make law and is therefore unconstitutional
Case for mischief
RCN v DHSS
Nurses were helping perform abortions. Abortion Act 1967 states only a ‘registered medical practitioner’ can perform abortions, so nurses were technically not allowed. The judges decided the mischief the Act was in place to prevent was women getting unsafe abortions not in a hospital, so then saw it beneficial to allow nurses to help so more safe ones can take place. 2 judges disagreed and wanted literal rule
