statutory interpetation

• What are the 3 rules of statutory interpretation?


  • literal rule
  • golden rule
  • mischief rule
• Literal Rule- Courts will give their plain, ordinary or literal meaning. May use a dictionary.
• What is an example of a ase which used the literal rule and made the law absurd?


  Whiteley V Chappell
• Golden Rule- modification of the literal rule, looks at the literal meaning but avoids an absurd result.
• the narrow application of the golden rule is when the court may only choose between the possible meanings of a word or phrase.
• the wider application of the golden rule is when words only have one clear meaning but that meaning would lead to an absurd result. Then, the court will use tis rule to modify the words of the satute.
• Alder V George- narrow view of the golden rule.
• Mischief Rule comes from Heydon's case. 4 points the court should consider.
• The mischief rule looks back to the gap in previous law and interprets this to cover the gap.
• The mischief rule was used in the Smith V Hughes case.
• Purposive approach- an approach to statutory interpretation in which the courts look to see what is the purpose of the law.
• Purposive approach was used in the ex parte smith case
• Intrinsic aids: Matters within the statute itself that may help to make its meaning clearer.

  • Court may consider the long title, short title and preamble, more modern statutes dont have preamble.
  • headings before a group of sections and any schedules attached to the act
  • marginal notes explaining sections
  • other sections in the Act- Harrow V Shah and Shah
• Extrinsic aids: matters outside the Act and it has always been accepted that some external sources can explain the meaning of an Act. These sources are;

  • previous Acts on the same topic
  • historical setting
  • earlier case law
  • dictionaries of the time- Cheeseman case
• other extrinsic aids:

  • Hansard- the official report of what was said in Parliament when the Act was debated
  • reports of law reform bodies such as the Law Commission which led to the passing of the Act
  • international conventions or regulations which have been implemented by English legislation
• Use of Hansard: Pepper V Hart

  Hansard may be considered but only when the words of the Act are ambiguous or lead to an absurdity and it should only be used if there was a clear statement introducing the legislation.
• Effect of EU law:

  purposive approach is the one preferred by most European countries when interpreting their own legislation and is also adopted by the European Court of Justice.

  • Uk has to accept that for law which has been passed as a result of having to conform to a European law, the purposive approach is correct
  • judges have used the purposive approach for over 40 years meaning it is the most likely to apply it to English law.
• Interpreting EU law:

  When law is based n European law, the English courts have had to interpret it in the light of the wording and purpose of the law.

  The treaty of Rome set out duties of European member states stated that all members were required to take all appropriate measures to ensure fulfilment of obligations.

  UK has now left so this no longer applies
• Effect of Human Rights Act 1998:

  legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the right in the European Convention of Human Rights.

  Mendoza V Ghaidan
• advantages of literal rule;

  • follows the words that Parliament used
  • prevents unelected judges from making law
  • make the law more certain- easier to predict
• disadvantages of literal rule:

  • assumes every Act will be perfectly drafted- Whitely V Chappell
  • words may have more than one meaning so Act is unclear
  • following words exactly can lead to unfair or unjust decisions
• advantages of golden rule:

  • respects exact words of Parliament except in limited situations, provides an escape route
  • allows judge to choose most sensible meaning when there is more than one meaning
• disadvantages of golden rule:

  • very limited and is used in rare occasions
  • not always possible to predict when courts will use this approach
• advantages of mischief rule:

  • promotes the purpose of the law as it allows judges to look back at the gap in the law
  • likely to produce a just result
• disadvantages of mischief rule:

  • risk of judicial law making
  • not as wide of the purposive approach
  • limited to looking back at old law
  • can make the law more uncertain
• advantages of purposive approach:

  • leads to justice in individual cases
  • allows for new developments in technology
  • avoids absurd decisions
• disadvantages of purposive approach:

  • difficult to find Parliament's intention
  • allows judges to make law
  • leads to uncertainty in the law