Statutory Interpretation Cases Flashcards
Whiteley v Chappell (1868)
Literal rule.
- defendant charged under section which made it an offence to impersonate any person entitled to vote.
- defendant pretended to be a person whose name was on the voters’ list- but he had died.
- court held defendant not guilty since a dead person is not literally entitled to vote.
London & North Eastern Railway Co. v Berriman (1946)
Literal rule.
- railway worker killed whilst oiling track.
- no look out man provided.
- statute provided compensation on death for those ‘relaying/repairing’ track.
- under literal rule oiling didn’t come under these categories.
- widow entitled to nothing.
Fisher v Bell (1961)
Literal rule.
- shopkeeper who displayed a flick- knife in window found not guilty of offering it for sale.
- offence under restriction of offensive weapons act 1959 to ‘offer for sale’ such weapons.
- words offer for sale interpreted strictly under contract law, and in contractual terms, goods in a shop window display aren’t on offer.
Adler v George (1964)
Golden rule - Narrow approach.
- under officials secret act (1920)- was an offence to obstruct a member of armed forces in vicinity of prohibited place.
- defendant was in prohibited place- not in vicinity.
- court applied golden rule
Re Sigsworth (1935)
Golden rule - Wide approach
- son murdered his mother.
- she hadn’t made a will.
- he was set to inherit her entire estate
- court applied golden rule and thus he was entitled to nothing.
Smith v Hughes (1960)
Mischief rule.
- defendants were prostitutes- charged under street offence act 1959- offence to solicit in a public place.
- prostitutes were soliciting in windows or balconies- seen by public.
- applied mischief rule.
Eastbourne Borough Council v Stirling (2000)
Mischief rule.
- taxi driver charged with plying for hire in any street without a license to do so.
- vehicle parked on taxi rank on station forecourt, not on a street.
- found guilty, although taxi was on private land, likely to get customers from street.
- court referred to Smith v Hughes and said it was same point.
Royal College of Nursing v DHSS (1981)
Mischief rule.
- Abortion act- terminated by a registered medical practitioner- 1967 passed.
- from 1972, method of terminating pregnancy was to induce premature labour with any drugs.
- court had to decide if procedure was lawful under abortion act- case went house of lords, 3 judges said it was lawful, 2 didn’t.
- 3 judges took mischief rule, 2 took literal.
Pepper v Hart (1992)
Purposive approach.
- House of Lords had to decide whether a teacher at a priv school had to pay tax on perk he received- form of reduced school fees.
- teacher sought to reply upon statement in Hansard- made at time finance act was passed.
- previously courts not allowed to refer to Hansard.
- teacher not required to pay tax on perk.
Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah (1999)
Intrinsic aids.
- defendants charged under s 13 (1) (c) of the National Lottery Act 1993.
- subsection doesn’t include any words indicating if mens rea is required or not. Nor does it contain any provision for a defence of ‘due diligence’
- another subsection, s 13 (1) (a), allows a defence of ‘due diligence’
Mendoza v Ghaudan (2002)
Human rights act.
- involved interpretation of rent act 1977.
- rent act applied when a person who had the tenancy of property dies.
- allowed unmarried partners to succeed to the tenancy.
- question was whether same sex partners had right to take over tenancy.
- court of appeal held that rent act had to interpreted to the European Convention on Human Rights which forbids discrimination on ground of gender.
- allowed same sex partners to have same rights as unmarried opposite sex couples.
