summary

• Statutory Interpretation

  Statutory interpretation involves judges interpreting and applying legislation to resolve disputes where the meaning of words in a statute may be unclear.
• Aids to Interpretation

  Intrinsic Aids (Within the Act)

  •Definition sections: Clarify key terms.

  •Preambles: Outline the Act’s purpose.

  •Schedules: Add details (e.g., exceptions).

  Extrinsic Aids (Outside the Act)

  •Hansard: Parliamentary debates (permitted after Pepper v Hart (1993) under specific conditions).

  •Previous Acts of Parliament: Identify intended reforms.

  •Dictionaries: Reflect meaning at the time of drafting.

  •International Treaties: Relevant in EU and human rights cases.
• Why Statutory Interpretation Is Needed

  1.Ambiguity: Words may have more than one meaning.

  2.Broad Terms: Words may be too general (e.g., “vehicle” in London Borough of Bromley v Greater London Council).

  3.Drafting Errors: Mistakes may occur during the creation of the law.

  4.Technological Advancements: New technology may not have existed when the law was made (Royal College of Nursing v DHSS on abortion procedures).

  5.Changes in Language: The meaning of words may evolve over time.
• Impact of Statutory Interpretation

  1.Judicial Precedent: Creates case law by clarifying statutes.

  2.Parliamentary Sovereignty: Judges cannot rewrite laws but can adapt them to modern needs.

  3.Separation of Powers: Debate over judicial law-making.
• Evaluation

  •Literal Rule: Consistent but rigid.

  •Golden Rule: Flexible but subjective.

  •Mischief Rule: Fair but undermines wording.

  •Purposive Approach: Modern but reduces certainty.
• 1. The Literal Rule

  •Judges give words their plain, ordinary, dictionary meaning, even if it leads to absurd results.

  •Case Example: Whiteley v Chappell (1868): Defendant impersonated a deceased person to vote. The court held “entitled to vote” did not include dead people, so the defendant was acquitted.

  •Advantages:

  •Upholds parliamentary sovereignty.

  •Provides certainty in the law.

  •Disadvantages:

  •Can lead to absurd/unfair outcomes (e.g., LNER v Berriman).
• 2. The Golden Rule

  •A modification of the Literal Rule: Judges take the plain meaning unless it leads to an absurdity.

  •Two Approaches:

  •Narrow: Choose between multiple possible meanings.

  •Broad: Modify the meaning to avoid absurd results.

  •Case Example: Adler v George (1964): “In the vicinity of” was interpreted to include being “inside” a prohibited place.

  •Advantages:

  •Avoids absurd outcomes.

  •Still respects the wording of Parliament.

  •Disadvantages:

  •No clear guidance on what counts as “absurd.”
• 3. The Mischief Rule

  •Judges consider the gap in the law Parliament intended to address and interpret the statute to “suppress the mischief.”

  •Case Example: Smith v Hughes (1960): Prostitutes soliciting from balconies were found guilty under the Street Offences Act 1959, even though the Act referred to “in the street.”

  •Advantages:

  •Promotes the purpose of the law.

  •Produces fair outcomes.

  •Disadvantages:

  •Risks judicial law-making.

  •Less predictable.
• 4. The Purposive Approach

  •Judges focus on Parliament’s intended purpose behind the law.

  •Favored in EU law interpretation and under the Human Rights Act 1998.

  •Case Example: R v Registrar-General, ex parte Smith (1990): Prevented disclosure of adoption records to a potentially dangerous individual despite statutory wording.

  •Advantages:

  •Ensures the law achieves its intended effect.

  •Adapts to modern contexts.

  •Disadvantages:

  •Greater judicial discretion

  •Undermines certainty.