Statutory Interpretation: Rules of Language Flashcards
Ejusdem Generis:
Of the Same Genus
When a general word is followed by a list of specific words, then the general word must be read according to the same ‘type or group’ as the specific words.
e.g. words dog, cat, fish. Wouldn’t add zebra because it isn’t domestic animal, would add rabbit because that can be a household pet.
Example
Powell v Kempton Park Racecourse 1899:
Racecourse owner prosecuted for allowing gambling in Tattersalls Ring. Act said illegal to gamble in any “Room, Office, Hall or Other Place.”
Not Guilty because words on list were indoors, ring was outside so wasn’t in ‘same group’
Expressio Unius Est Exclussio Alterius:
The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.
If the Act has a list of words in it, the judge can decide to only use that list and not any other words.
Example
R v Inhabitants of Sedgely 1831:
A statute raised taxes on ‘Lands, Houses and Coalmines’. The judge had to decide whether the tax applied to a Limestone Mine.
Judge held that it didn’t apply because only Coal mines were listed so it only applies to them, Limestone mines exempt.
Noscitur A Sociis:
‘a man is known by his associates’
The statute must be read as a whole
The whole statute must be read in order to understand it
e.g. If an Act said ‘Brakes, Tyres, Clutches and Oil’ the judge wouldn’t include Olive Oil because they can tell the Act is referring to engines.
Example
Pengelly v Bell Punch Co.Ltd 1964:
Court had to decide whether a floor used for storage came under the Factories Act 1961. The list mentioned “floors, steps, passageways and gangways” had to be kept free from obstruction.
The judge held that the floor didn’t come under the Act because the words in the list indicate passage or movement, whereas a floor for storage did not.
Presumptions:
When the court assumes something before it comes to court
- Every Criminal Offence Requires A Mens Rea (Guilty Mind)
Many Acts don’t require mens rea so if the judge doesn’t see it mentioned then they will apply the literal rule. They will say the crime is one of ‘strict liability’.
e.g. road crimes are strict liability- parking on double yellow lines, you don’t have to have intended to do it to be guilty.
Example
Sweet v Parsely 1969:
teacher rented house to drug users, she collected rent at door but never went in so she didn’t know about the drugs. She was convicted of ‘being concerned with premises where drugs were being consumed or dealt.’ Act doesn’t indicate mens rea but court presumed it existed. She wasn’t guilty because she needed mens rea and couldn’t have it if she didn’t know about the drugs.
Presumption:
Acts aren’t intended to be retrospective (backdated)
This presumption was rebutted.
Police Detention and Bail Act 2011 was an emergency Act which said police could put you on Bail for as long as they wanted. Backdated to 1984 to stop people suing for being on bail for longer than 4 days.
Presumption:
Human Rights are to be applied to every Act.
Given statuatory authority by the Human Rights Act 1998.
Section 3.
