Statutory Interpretation (SA P2 CRIMINAL COURTS AND LAY PEOPLE) Flashcards
1
Q
What is the Literal rule?
A
- Involves giving words their plain, ordinary, grammatical, literal meaning as would appear in a dictionary
- Applied even if it results in an absurd/harsh/ridiculous outcome
2
Q
Whiteley V Chappell
A
- 1968
- Literal rule
- D charged with impersonating ‘any person entitled to vote’ at an election
- Acquitted as he impersonated a dead person, a dead person is not entitled to vote!
3
Q
LNER V Berriman
A
- 1946
- Literal rule
- Railway worker only entitled to a lookout if they were ‘relaying or repairing’ the track
- Widow unable to claim compensation for husband’s death who was ‘oiling’ the track (maintenance)
4
Q
Fisher V Bell
A
- 1961
- Literal rule
- Shopkeeper D had flick-knives on display in shop window
- Restriction of Offences Act 1959 made it an offence to ‘offer for sale’ these knives
- D argued display in window is not ‘offer for sale’, under contract law it is an ‘invitation to treat’
- D not guilty
5
Q
What is the golden rule?
A
Modification of the literal rule, only used when the use of the literal rule would produce an absurd or unjust result
6
Q
Narrow use (golden rule)
A
- Where a work has 2 possible meanings but one would produce an unwanted or absurd outcome
- Court chooses the sensible meaning
7
Q
e.g narrow use
A
- R V Allen
- 1872
- Offence of bigamy committed by marrying someone while legally married to another
- Impossible to commit the offence
- Court held ‘marry’ should be interpreted to mean ‘to go through a ceremony of marriage’
- Convicted Allen
8
Q
Wide use (golden rule)
A
- Only one literal meaning of a word which would lead to an absurd outcome
- Used to alter meanings of words to avoid unwanted outcome
9
Q
e.g wide use
A
- Re Sigsworth
- 1935
- Son (murdered mother) prevented from inheriting mother’s estate under Administration of Estates Act 1925
- Wording of the Act was clear: D was the ‘next of kin’
- Court did not want him to benefit from his crime as its outcome would be absurd
10
Q
What is the Mischief Rule?
A
- Originated from Hayden’s Case 1584
- Looks back to gap in previous law and interprets the Act so as to cover the gap
11
Q
What four things are to be discussed and considered (mischief rule)?
A
- What was the old law?
- What was the problem/mischief with that law?
- What remedy did Parliament include in the new law?
- How can the new law be interpreted to suppress the mischief?
12
Q
Smith V Hughes
A
- 1960
- Mischief rule
- Words ‘soliciting in the agree’ in Street Offences Act 1958 held to include soliciting from window of a house
13
Q
Royal College of Nursing Case
A
- 1981
- Mischief rule
- Court considered wording of Abortion Act 1967 which allowed ‘registered medical practitioners’ to carry out abortions
- Court looked at ‘mischief’ Parliament was aiming to address, decided that nurses supervising part of procedure was not unlawful
14
Q
What is the Purposive approach?
A
- Give effect to Parliament’s intentions when passing a new law
- Extension of mischief rule
15
Q
Jones V Tower Boot
A
- 1997
- Purposive approach
- Court decided racial harassment by fellow workers was ‘in the course of employment’, making the employer liable
- Intention was to eliminate racism in the workplace, irrelevant that workers weren’t actually being paid to be racist
16
Q
R (Quintavalle) V Secretary of State
A
- 2003
- Purposive approach
- Court decided organisms created by cell nuclear replacement (CNR) came within the definition of ‘embryo’ in Human Embryology and Fertilisation Act 1990
- Act stated ‘embryo means live human embryo where fertilisation is complete’
- CNR does not require fertilisation but had not been developed when the Act was passed
17
Q
What are the 2 types of aids to interpretation?
A
- Intrinsic aids
- Extrinsic aids
18
Q
What are the 6 intrinsic aids?
A
- Long and short title: meat give clues to meaning of words used in Act (e.g RCN V DHSS)
- Preamble/purpose section: brief introduction to the Act, sets out its aims and objectives (e.g Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Act 2006)
- Interpretation section: explanation of key terms and phrases in an Act (e.g Theft Act s.1 1968)
- Schedules: additions to Act containing further details (e.g Hunting Act 2004)
- Explanatory notes: inserted by parliamentary draftsmen when the Act goes for printing
- Punctuation: should be taken into account by judges
19
Q
What are the 8 extrinsic aids?
A
- Dictionary: oxford dictionary, used to discover the plain ordinary meaning (e.g DPP V Cheeseman)
- Hansard: since Pepper V Hart, a. only be used if the word has been discussed during one of the debates in parliament during its passage
- Law Commission Reports: keep the law under review (e.g Coroners and Justice Act 2009)
- Precedent: case law appropriate to the area of law
- Human Rights Act 1998: interpret Acts to be consistent with European Convention of Human Rights
- EU law: influenced judges to adopt a purposive approach when interpreting statutes
- Academic textbooks: (e.g Dunlop V Selfridge 1915)
- Interpretation Act 1978: most acts use common phrases, ‘he’ will always mean ‘she’ and singular will always include plural
20
Q
DPP V Cheeseman
A
- 1990
- D exposed himself in public toilets, act stated it was an offence to do this to the annoyance of ‘passengers’ (people using toilets for normal purposes)
- Police officers were not ‘passengers’ (not using the toilets)
- D was not guilty
