Statutory Interpretation ELS PAPER 1 Flashcards
Definition of SI
The process by which courts interpret and apply legislation
Ways in which acts of parliament might be inclear
Uses broad terms Ambiguity A drafting error New developments since the act Changes in the use of language
Literal rule definition
Judge gives words their plain, ordinary, dictionary meaning even if the result isn’t sensible
Cases of literal rule
Whitely v chappell
London and north eastern railway co v berriman
Whitely v chappell
Charged for impersonating any person entitled to vote
D was acquitted as he impersonated a dead person
Applying the dead person rule, a dead person is not entitled to vote
London and north eastern railway co v berriman
Wife was unable to claim compensation
Husband was killed while carrying out maintenance ok the track.
Statute said that a lookout should only be given if they are relaying or repairing the track
So they was not given compensation as he was only maintaining the track
Advantages of literal rule
Democratic- follows The wording of Parliament and prevents unelected judges from making law
Makes the law more certain- easier to predict how the judge will interpret the law. Stops time wasting in court
Disadvantages of literal rule
Can lead to absurd results- whitley v chappell - absurd that someone guilty of impersonating a live person but not if impersonating a dead person parliaments intention was to stop all electoral fraud
Can lead to unjust results- london and north eastern railway co. V berriman- unfair that Mrs Berryman did not get compensation clearly just as much needed for a lookout when maintaining a track and repairing/relaying
Golden rule
Judges should use the literal unless it produces an absurd result then use the golden rule
Types of golden rule
Narrow golden rule
Wide golden rule
Narrow golden rule
Only use when there is more than one meaning of the word- chosen on what meaning avoids an absurd result
Jones v dpp
Wide golden rule
Use the rule even if there is only one meaning of the rule but following the literal rule would produce a absurd or repugnant situation
R v allen
Narrow golden rule
D married someone else whilst in a marriage already. (Bigamy)
D argued not guilty as his second marriage was not void
Court held that to marry had two meanings- being validly married and going through a marriage ceremony
Court chose the 2 nd meaning as he had gone through the marriage ceremony and was found guilty
R v sigsworth
Wide golden rule
Son murdered his mother. Mother hadn’t made a will so he would inherit all her belongings and the estate
If the literal rule was followed the murderer son would have inherited. The court wasnt going to let him benefit from the crime so the golden rule was used to avoid a repugnant outcome
Advantages of golden rule
Respects the words of parliament- allows wording to be altered in very limited situations
Allows judges to make sensible decisions- use of narrow rule in r v allen avoided a absurd outcome and the wide rule in r v sigsworth avoided a repugnant outcome
Disadvantages of golden rule
Unpredictable and lacks guidelines- michael zander “an unpredictable safety valve” due to lack of guidelines. Rule provides no clear definition of what absurdity means
Not much use- michael zander “a feeble parachute” can’t be used in cases like berriman although the situation could be seen as unfair it was not absurd or repugnanty
Mischief rule
Heydon’s case 1584
Should consider the:
Common law before
Mischief that the act was designed to remedy
What was the remedy that parliament was trying to provide
What was the reason for the remedy
Judges should look out for the mischief the act was intended to remedy and interpret the act in such a way that a way that a remedy is achieved
Smith v hughes
Mischief rule
Street offences act 1959 prohibited “soliciting in the street”.
Court considered case of women soliciting from balconies and windows and roof this as included in a definition of in the street
the mischief the act was trying to prevent was people in the street being harassed by prostitutes they were still being harassed even though the prostitutes were not on the streets
Royal college of nursing v dhss
Mischief rule
Abortion act 1967- pregnancies had to be terminated by a registered practitioner
Court considered whether this included nurses and ruled that it did
The mischief that parliament was trying to prevent was illegal backstreet abortions
Having nurses do the procedure doesn’t interfere with this
Advantages of mischief rule
Fulfills the purpose of the law- smith v hughes - parliaments intention was to stop prostitutes from being a nuisance to others whether they were literally on the street or notLaw commission 1969-a rather more satisfactory approach
More likely to produce just results-find a remedy With avoiding it and just results like London and North Eastern Railway co V Berriman - mischief of railway workers not being protected and the act would be interpreted to include maintenance
Disadvantages of mischief rule
Undemocratic- gives too much power for Unelected judges. Smith V Hughes-if Parliament had intended the straight offences act to apply to prostitutes in houses it would have said so-the democratic solution would be for Parliament to pass and amending act
Uncertainty- if judge changes the meaning of a statute there will be no certainty in outcome of cases-stock V Frank Jones- ordinary citizens and their advisors hardly know where they stand-waste time in courts
Purposive approach
Court look for the purpose of the act and interpret the act in such a way that the purpose is achieved
Modern day version of the mischief rule but judges have even more freedom
R v registrar general ex parte smith
Purposive approach
Adoption act 1976 Allowed people Who had been adopted to find out the identity of their natural parents it was clearly not Parliament‘s purpose to allow people to obtain their information if they posed as a threat to the parent.
The defendant had already committed to murders and was mentally ill and posed a risk to his mother so court felt Parliament would have wanted his mother to be protected
Jones V tower boot company
Purposive approach
Race relations act-anything done by a person in the course of his employment shall be treated as done by his employer.
Jones had been the victim of racial harassment by fellow workers tower boot company tried to claim this behaviour was not in the course of employment as such behaviour was not part of their job
Court decided that racial harassment by fellow workers was in the course of employment making the employer liable
