Statutory interpretation - The Purposive approach Flashcards
Definition
It goes beyond the mischief rule and considers what parliament meant to achieve by passing the act (its purpose).
Magor and St Melons v Newport Corporation
Lord Denning said: “ we sit here to find out the intention of Parliament and carry it out…”
Viscount Simmonds said that the purposive approach was a “naked usurpation of the legislative function under the guise of interpretation”
Jones v Towerboot Co
C suffered racial abuse at work. The Race Relations \Act 1976 says the employer is liable for what happens “during the course of employment”, The employer argued racial abuse was not within the course of employment, however, using the purposive approach, were found liable.
R v Registrar General ex Parte Smith
Smith had murdered two people and was at Broadmoor. He wanted his birth certificate to find out who his birth mother was and possibly inflict harm. The Adoption Act 1976 stated that the registrar general “shall supply” those with their birth certificate, however, Smith was not allowed his as the purpose of the act was NOT to promote violence or criminal behaviour.
Advantage - Avoids absurdities and injustices
Avoids absurdity and injustice by allowing judges to ignore the strict meaning which achieves what they believe Parliament’s purpose to be. This enables the act to cover more situations and to cause less absurdities. E.g. LNER v Berriman in which IF the purposive approach was used, judges would probably have decided that Parliament’s intention was to improve safety of workers on the track and therefore found D liable instead.
Advantage - Allows for social, economical and technological change
Rules allow for social, economic and technological change by allowing judges to interpret a statute widely to accommodate such changes. This in turn prevents parliament for having to make a statute every time a change occurs. This is good because legislating can be a time consuming process. E.g. In RCN v DHSS the court took medical advances since the Abortion Act 1967 into account when judges reinterpreted “registered medical practitioners” to include nurses to that they could carry out abortions. This avoided the need for Parliament to make a new statute on the issue.
Disadvantage - Judicial law making
Risk of Judicial Law making as Lord Simmons described this rule as “a naked usurpation of the legislative function in the guise of interpretation” meaning judges are taking over Parliament’s job of law making and just calling it interpretation which erodes Parliament’s supremacy. E.g. R v Registrar ex Parte Smith judges ignored parliament’s clear wording of “shall supply” and interpreted the law to have the opposite meaning and outcome i.e denying Mr Smith a copy of his birth records.
Disadvantage - Not find/ agree on what purpose is
Judges may not be able to find/ agree on the purpose of the act as they can refer to various aids such as the long and short title and explanatory notes but these may not reveal the statute’s purpose, in which case, judges may guess the purpose and get it wrong or interpret it differently to similar cases leading the law to become inconsistent and unfair. This is bad for lawyers, Ds and the public as the latter don’t know what they can/ cannot legally do and the two former cannot accurately predict the outcome of a case.
