Statutory interpretations

• Literal rule causes judges to look at the ordinary dictionary meaning of a word. Lord Esher says to use the rule even if it manifests absurdity. Shown in LNER v Berriman and DPP v Cheeseman
• Advantages of literal rule is that it provides certainty. Follows Act strictly so always same meaning. Keeps law fair and allows lawyers to know the law and prepare for trials
• Advantages of literal is that it saves judges time. Judges just have to apply not think about meaning. Means swift justice and that cases are dealt with quicker
• Advantages of literal is that it respects Parliamentary Supremacy. Follows the wording Parliament wrote . Unelected judges shouldn't question laws made by elected body,
• Advantages of literal is that it respects separation of powers. Judges are merely interpreting the law rather than changing it. Judges are doing their constitutional role and not exceeding powers.
• Disadvantage of literal rule is that can lead to absurdity. Follows wording strictly which can lead to restrictions. Bad decisions made which lead to injustice
• Disadvantage of literal rule is that it doesn't apply to words with multiple meanings. Judges cant apply to opposite meanings at the same time. Could make it hard to apply literal rule which isn't as time saving
• Disadvantage of literal rule is that it assumes perfection in drafting. Judges follow exact words even if Parliament make a mistake. Parliaments intention isn't fulfilled due to an oversight in wording
• Disadvantage of literal rule is that it doesn't allow judicial creativity. Judges have to use exact wording even if its outdated. Law wont be updated and requires Parliament to spend time tweaking small problems
• Narrow approach of golden rule allows judges to choose the most appropriate definition from a word with multiple meanings. Broad approach allows judges to modify words if they lead to absurdity. Judges have to start with literal rule. Shown in R v Allen and Re Sigsworth
• An advantage of golden rule is that it avoids absurdity. Judges can change meaning to make sure they make sense. Justice will be served in cases where literal rule would lead to absurd decision.
• An advantage of golden rule is that it puts Parliament intention into practice. Judges can change the wording to make statute do exactly what Parliament wanted. Judges can enforce the law to give intended effect.
• An advantage of golden rule is that it applies to words with multiple meanings. When using narrow approach, judges can choose meaning. Fixes the problem so law is quick and easy.
• An advantage of golden rule is that it allows for judicial creativity. Judges can change words to achieve justice. Saves Parliament time from updating old laws because judges can work around problems
• A disadvantage of golden rule is that it creates uncertainty. all judges differ in opinions of what is absurd to change words of an Act. Leads to inconsistent decisions and laywers unable to prepare properly.
• A disadvantage of golden rule is that it goes against Parliamentary Supremacy. Judges are allowed to change wording which is changing the law. Unelected bodies shouldn't question elected bodies
• Narrow approach is inflexible. Judges still can only choose between two definitions. Judges are still very restricted which wont fully solve absurdity
• A disadvantage of golden rule is that it doesn't respect separation of powers. Allows Judges to alter wording of an Act. Not meant to judges role to make laws and therefore unconstitutional
• Mischief rule makes judges identify the problem and interpret the statute to stop the issue. Heydon's case lays out some questions for the judges to use like "what was the law before?" and "what's the reason behind the solution?" Shown in Smith v Hughes and RCN v DHSS
• An advantage of the mischief rule is that it avoids absurdity. Judges ignore strict words and prevent problem Parliament wanted to stop. Justice is served in cases where literal rule wouldn't work.
• An advantage of the mischief rule is that it puts Parliament's intention into place. Judges are fixing the problem rather than sticking to strict wording. Ensures law works as in intended
• An advantage of the mischief rule is that it creates flexibility. Judges use their own legal knowledge to come to a sensible decision. Judges aren't forced to make bad decisions and can consider circumstances/societal changes.
• An advantage of the mischief rule is that it allows for judicial creativity. Judges can alter the law to stop an occurring problem. Parliament doesn't have to labour over their Acts because judges an solve any issue.
• A disadvantage of the mischief rule is that it create uncertainty. Judges may disagree on what issue there is to solve. Leads to inconsistent decisions and lawyers unable to prepare for cases.
• A disadvantage of the mischief rule is that it goes against Parliamentary Supremacy. Judges have to decide what mischief is and may ignore Parliament wording. Parliaments job to make law as elected body not judges.
• A disadvantage of the mischief rule is that it limited to one problem at a time. Judges can only fill a gap in the old law. Rule is still limited in use and doesn't consider Ps purpose.
• A disadvantage of the mischief rule is that it doesn't respect separation of powers. Judges are changing law rather than taking Parliaments wording exactly. Going beyond their constitutional role and interpreting law.
• Judges focus on Parliament's intent and purpose of the Act in using the purposive approach. Denning says that it's just filling in the gaps. Shown in Jones v TBC and R v RG ex parte Smith
• An advantage of the purposive approach is that it avoids absurdity. Judges can ignore words and choose wording that puts Parliament's intention into place. Justice will be served in cases where bad wording cold led to a bad decision
• An advantage of the purposive approach is that it puts Parliaments intention into practice. Judges can ignore strict words and put true intention into effect. Law works as intended.
• An advantage of the purposive approach is that it promotes flexibility in the law. Judges can arrive at a decision that considers modern day circumstances. Allows judges to make sensible decisions and update law.
• An advantage of the purposive approach is that it allows for judicial creativity. Judges can change the law to conform with the purpose. Parliament don't have to constantly update the laws.
• A disadvantage of the purposive approach is that it creates uncertainty. Judges may disagree on what purpose of Act was. Leads to inconsistencies and lawyers unable to prepare properly.
• A disadvantage of the purposive approach is that it goes agaisnt Parliamentary Supremacy. Judges can make up what they think Parliament would want. Unelected judges shouldn't question Parliament law.
• A disadvantage of the purposive approach is that it is time consuming. Judges must look beyond the Act and use things like hansard to figure it out. Time may not be effectively used and cause further delays.
• A disadvantage of the purposive approach is that it doesn't respect separation of powers. Judges are able to change laws rather than interpret. Not their constitutional role.
• Intrinsic (internal) aids to interpretation include the definition section, short title and marginal notes
• Extrinsic (external) aids include a dictionary, Interpretation Act, Law Reform reports and Hansard
• Hansards are an edited record of everything said in Parliament. Judges can find Parliament's intention. Denning said in David v Johnson that to not use hansard is to grope around in dark without light on.
• Pepper v Hart allowed hansard use in three circumstances

  1. Act is ambiguous
  2. Hansard mentions something about ambiguity
  3. Hansard would clear it up

  Lord Mackay said it was time consuming and costly