Statutory Interpretation (SA P2 CRIMINAL COURTS AND LAY PEOPLE) Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified 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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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!
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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?
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What is the Purposive approach?

A
  • Give effect to Parliament’s intentions when passing a new law
  • Extension of mischief rule
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
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