Statutory Interpretation EVAL Flashcards
Literal Rule Advantages
Certainty - follows the Act strictly (word for word) and so the Acts will always have the same meaning (DPP v Cheeseman)
Parliamentary Supremacy - follows the exact wording P used and the literal meaning of those words (LNER v Berriman)
Saves P’s time - judges don’t need to think about the meaning of words + just apply them as they are (DPP v Cheeseman)
Respects Separation of Powers - judges are interpreting the law rather than creating or changing it (Cheeseman)
Literal Rule Disadvantages
Causes absurd decisions - follows words of Act strictly so may end up being restrictive (LNER v Berriman - absurd that V wasn’t entitled to a lookout)
Assumes perfection in drafting - judges follow exact words of the Act even if P have made mistakes (LNER v Berriman - clearly not what P wanted)
Disagreement with the ‘literal’ meaning of words - some words have more than one meaning (R v Allen - marriage had 2 meanings ghat could’ve been taken)
No judicial creativity - judges will have to use the exact definition from the time of the Act, even if it’s outdated (LNER v Berriman - Fatal Accidents Act was 100 years old)
Golden Rule Advantages
Avoids absurd decisions - judges can change the meaning of words in an Act to ensure they make sense (R v Allen - absurd to define ‘marry’ as ‘to be legally married’ (no one could ever commit bigamy) - instead, ‘to go through a wedding ceremony’)
Put P’s true intentions into effect - judges can change the meanings of words in an Act to make the statute actually do what P wanted (Re Sigsworth - unlikely P would want D to benefit from killing his mother)
Applies to words with multiple meanings - judges can choose between different meanings when using the narrow approach (R v Allen)
Judicial creativity - if words of an Act won’t achieve justice, judges can change the meaning of the words (Re Sigsworth)
Golden Rule Disadvantages
Uncertainty - all judges will differ in their opinions on what is absurd + so may disagree on when/how to change the wording of the Acts (Re Sigsworth - some judges may have not thought D receiving the inheritance was absurd)
Evades P Supremacy - judges can change the wording of an Act + so are changing the law from how P wrote it (Re Sigsworth - the court assumed P meant the wording meant ‘only if D didn’t kill his mother’ even though that wasn’t written in the Act)
Narrow Approach is Inflexible - judges still have to choose between two set meanings of a word (Re Sigsworth - no meaning of the words would’ve resolved the problem of D getting the inheritance)
Doesn’t respect Separation of Powers - allows for judges to alter the law/the wording of the Act (Re Sigsworth - judges chose to invent a new meaning for when someone should get their inheritance rather than taking the Act as it was literally)
Mischief Rule Advantages
Avoids absurd decisions - judges can ignore the strict words in an Act and prevent the problem P wanted to stop (Smith v Hughes - absurd to find D not guilty just because they were on a balcony when they were still doing the thing P wanted to stop - harassing people - so by ignoring the word ‘street’ the court were actually able to stop the mischief)
Flexibility - judges can ignore the strict words of the Act + use their own legal knowledge and intuition to come to a sensible and just decision (RCN v DHSS - judges could consider medical advances)
Achieves P’s true intentions - judges are fixing the problems for P rather than sticking to the strict 2ording (Smith v Hughes - the court could identify the problem of people being harassed and come to the conclusion P would’ve wanted rather than being forced into making one against their wishes due to the word ‘street’)
Judicial Creativity - judges can alter the law if a problem is still being caused despite the wording of the Act (Smith v Hughes - P’s wording of ‘street or public place’ didn’t fully solve the problem of prostitution - judges solved the problem by focusing on the problem rather than the wording)
Mischief Rule Disadvantages
Uncertainty - judges may disagree on what mischief P wanted to solve (RCN v DHSS - 2 judges felt that the literal rule should’ve been used instead of the mischief rule - a different set of judges may have come to a different decision)
Evades Parliamentary Supremacy - judges have to decide for themselves what the mischief is and may end up ignoring P’s wording to do so (RCN v DHSS - 2 of judges said other judges were taking over P’s role as supreme law-makers in re-drafting the legislation when they should just be interpreting the statute)
Limited to fixing one problem at a time - judges can only use to to ‘fill the gap’ in the old law, rather than give rise to P’s real purpose (R v RG ex parte Smith - mischief rule couldn’t be used because the Act wasn’t created to fix the mischief of serial killers murdering their mothers; instead the purposive approach had to be used)
Goes against the Separation of Powers - judges are changing the law rather than taking P’s words exactly (Smith v Hughes - the judges made it illegal to solicit from a private place even though the Act clearly specified public places)
Purposive Approach Advantages
Avoids absurd decisions - judges can ignore the strict words in an Acr and choose sensible wording which puts P’s true intention into effect (Jones v TBC - would’ve been absurd for D to not be liable for the racism in his workplace due to a technicality about being in the ‘course of employment’ - by ignoring the words of the Act, the court prevented discrimination (the result P wanted))
Flexibility - judges can arrive at the decision ap would make if it were considering the case in modern times rather than sticking to old wording (RCN v DHSS - medicine and society had changed since the Abortion Act and P’s purpose of making abortions safer could be fulfilled by allowing nurses to help with the procedure)
Achieves P’s true intent - judges can ignore the strict words in an Act + put P’s true intention into effect (Jones v TBC - P didn’t have to make a new statute to address racial harassment - the court could recognise what P would’ve wanted + so put that intention into effect)
Judicial Creativity - judges can change the law to conform with the purpose of an Act rather than taking the law exactly as it is written (Jones v TBC - judges could accomplish the purpose of the Act despite the wording of the Act possibly leading to racial discrimination being unpunished)
Purposive Approach Disadvantages
Uncertainty - judges may disagree on what the purpose of an Act/P’s intention actually was (R v RG ex parte Smith - some judges may have felt that P’ clear wording meant that they wanted D to get his birth certificate in all circumstances)
Evade Parliamentary Supremacy - judges can make up what they think P wanted + so ignore what the Act actually says (R v RG ex parte Smith - judge decided to not give birth certificate despite the wording ‘shall supply’ being very clear that D should have it in all circumstances)
Makes judges too powerful - there are no guidelines on how or when to use it (R v Clinton - judges completely ignored the clear in an Act which says that sexual infidelity cannot reduce a murder charge to manslaughter. They chose to drop D’s murder charge to manslaughter)
Goes against Separation of Powers - judges are able to change laws rather than just interpret them (Jones v TBC - judges weren’t really interpreting the meaning of ‘course of employment’ so much as deciding what the right thing to do was in the situation)
