statutory interpretation(topic3) Flashcards
define statutory interpretation?
interpreting statutes to find parliament’s intention
why is statutory interpretation important?
to ensure the law remains accurate
what are the 5 reasons for statutory interpretations?
1)broad term
2)ambiguity
3)drafting error
4)new developments
5)changes in the use of language
define broad terms giving an example
1)some terms with wide variations of definitions
e.g motor vehicles
define ambiguity giving an example
some unclear terms
e.g theft act -‘ must be dishonest’
define drafting errors giving an example
1)a mistake in the legislation
e.g ABH(s47) and GBH(s20) = mean the same thing
define new developments and give an example
1) new technology + ideas
e.g drones
define changes in language and give an example
1)changed in language, words have different definitions
e.g Cheeseman v DPP
what are the two approaches to statutory interpretations?
1)purposive approach
2) literal approach
explain what the literal approach is
1) judges examine each word individually and take their literal meaning
explain what the purposive approach is
judges finding the intention of parliament by looking at what they were trying to achieve
why is the purposive approach important in EU law
1)different languages mean it is difficult to interpret words literally or even translate one language to another.
what are 2 case examples where the purposive approach was used
1)R v Registrar General, ex parte Smith 1990
2) R v Secretary of State 2003
which act was involved in the R v Registrar General, ex parte Smith 1990
adoption act 1976
which approach was used first in R v Registrar General, ex parte Smith 1990
'’shall supply’’ meant he was entitled to a birth certificate which was the use of a literal approach
why did they apply the purposive approach instead in R v Registrar General, ex parte Smith 1990
the defendant was a convicted killer and parliament refused to supply him with a birth certificate as it would pose a threat to their birth parents
what was the issue which needed to be resolved in R v Secretary of State 2003
1) the issue was the Human Fertilisation + Embiology Act 1990
2)and prove that the embryo was a fertilized egg
what would be the outcome if the literal approach was used in R v Secretary of State 2003
it only referred to fertilised embryos meaning cloned embryos may be misused.
why did HOL use the purposive approach in R v Secretary of State 2003
1) it would include clones
2)would mean embryos of any type would be affected
3) clones = not fertilised so they are included in the rule
state the first pro of the purposive approach explain it and give a counterpoint.
pro: it makes sense to look at the whole purpose of the act
explanation: RV Register general the adoption act did not aim to enable hostility towards birth parents
counterpoints: however, there could be uncertainty if a judge changes the meaning of the statute
state the second pro of the purposive approach explain it and give a counterpoint.
Pro: It gives effect to parliament’s intentions
. For example, in R v Secretary of State Parliament, it meant for clone research to be licensed like embryos.
counterpoint: however, this could be undemocratic as judges are not elected.
Explain the first con of the purposive approach and give a counterpoint.
con: there could be uncertainty if a judge changes the meaning of the statute
explanation: RV Register general the adoption act did not aim to enable hostility towards birth parents
counterpoint: it makes sense to look at the whole purpose of the act
Explain the second con of the purposive approach and give a counterpoint
con: this could be undemocratic as judges are not elected.
explanation: R v Secretary of State Parliament, it meant for clone research to be licensed like embryos.
counterpoint: It gives effect to parliament’s intentions
Explain the third con of the purposive approach and give a counterpoint
con: working out the intention of parliament can be hard because some words/ acts may be difficult to interpret.
explanation: e.g Cheeseman v Dpp we don’t know what parliament meant
counterpoint: can use aids to interpretation like a dictionary
what are the three rules of interpretations
1)the literal rule
2) the mischief rule
3)golden rule
4 problems of using different rules of interpretations
1) causes confusion
2) may cause uncertainty- the public do not know the law
3)unpredictable
4) this might undermine the idea of ‘rule of law’
what are the pros of using multiple rules of interpretation?
1) gives flexibility - it can adapt to different situations through discussions and considerations.
define literal rule
if the words of an act are clear then you must follow them even though they lead to a manifest absurdity
why is the literal approach the most democratic?
1) The law is the same for everyone
2)follows the law as it is written by parliament
what happened in Whiteley v Chappell 1868
1) a man was charged with voting while impersonating a deceased person
was the defendant acquitted or convicted?
1)Whitely was acquitted
2) the court ruled the dead person was not considered a ‘person’ under the law
what was the offence in Whitely v Chapel 1868
voter fraud
what was the intention of parliament in passing the law in Whitely v Chappel 1868
the ruling suggests that Parliament never intended to cover situations involving deceased individuals within the law and It was only to prevent voter fraud
what are two case examples where the literal rule was used
1) Whiteley v Chappel 1868
2)London and north eastern railway v Berriman 1946
what happened in London and north eastern railway v Berriman 1946
Mr. Berriman was run over by a train and his widow Mrs Berriman was looking for compensation
when did he act to state that a lookout should be provided in London and north eastern railway v Berriman 1946
1)during re-laying
2)repairing
3)rail trade
how was Defendant killed in London and North Eastern Railway v Berriman 1946
hit by a train while oiling the tracks
what did the court decide during London and North Eastern Railway v Berriman 1946
no payment for Mrs Berriman
what was the intention of parliament in London and North Eastern Railway v Berriman 1946
1) was to protect workers and pay payments when accidents happen.
what is one pro of the literal rule and explain it
1)follows the words used by Parliament
2)parliament is supreme so it is only right that judges should apply the law exactly as written
what is the second pro of using the literal rule, and explain
1)makes the law certain
2) law is interpreted exactly as it is written which should make the law easier for people to know what the law is and how judges will apply it
what is the first con of using the literal rule and explain
1) one con is that it assumes every act is carefully drafted
2) it is not always possible to word an act that it covers every situation that Parliament intended e.g whitely v Chappell
what is the second con of using a literal rule and explain
1) one con is that if a word has more than one meaning it may be unclear. Dictionaries often provide different meanings
what is the third con of using a literal rule explain it
1)one con is that unjust or harsh decisions may be made
2)e.g London and North Eastern Railway v Berriman 1946
explain what the golden rule is
starts by looking at the literal meaning, it is then allowed to avoid an interpretation that would lead to absurd or harsh results.
what two applications of the golden rule can courts use:
1) the narrow application
2) wider application
what is an example where a narrow application of the golden rule was used and explain what it is
1) R v Allen 1872 - a man caught marrying more than one wife
explain how the narrow application of the golden rule was used in R v allen 1872
1) the ambiguous definition of ‘shall marry’ within the Offences Against Person Act 1861 for Bigamy
2)interpret using the narrow approach of the golden rule.
3)’’ Shall marry’ was interpreted to mean to go through with the marriage ceremony
4) therefore Allen was found guilty of Bigamy by going through a marriage ceremony
what is an example of a wider application and explain it
1) Re Sigsworth 1935 - a man who killed his mother to try to get her inheritance
using the case of Re sigs-worth 1935 to explain how a wider approach was used
1)a wider approach by choosing an entirely different meaning altogether
2)in Re sigs-worth 1955 the Administration of Justice Act 1925 used a wider approach to not allow her son who murdered his mother to inherit where no will was established.
3) therefore the wider approach was used to determine that the included inheritance being allowed where it would not be a benefit to another crime.
what is the first pro of using the golden rule and explain
1) the first pro is that it respects the exact words used
2) follows the words of parliament but provides an escape route where there is a harsh or absurd result.
what is the second pro of using the golden rule and explain
1) chooses the most sensible outcome
2)this again avoids the problems of the literal rule by providing sensible decisions