STATUTORY INTERPRETATION

• What are the four types of rules used in interpreting statutes?

  Literal rule, golden rule, mischief rule, purposive approach
• What is the literal rule?

  When judges give the words of an Act their ordinary, literal meaning.

  Their is emphasis on what Parliament said rather than what it meant.
• What did Lord Esher say to support the use of the Literal rule?

  Parliamentary sovereignty - if their is a mistake with wording, then it is the role of Parliament to solve it, not the role of judges.
• CASE: Cheeseman v DPP

  A man was caught masturbating in a public toilet by police that we stationed outside due to the defendant repeatedly offending.

  The crime was that D was caught by ‘passengers’ - police were not deemed as passengers since they were purposely stationed outside.
• CASE: Fisher v Bell

  The defendant displayed a flick knife in the window of his shop - he was then charged with ‘offering the sale’ of a flick knife against the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act.

  The Court deemed it was an ‘invitation to treat’ rather than an ‘offer of sale’.
• CASE: BRB v Berriman

  Berriman had been maintaining part of the railway and had been killed whilst doing so due to no look out man being provided.

  A statute offered compensation when a worker had been killed if ‘relaying or repairing’ the track. The Court deemed that Berriman had been maintaining the track rather than ‘relaying or repairing’ and didn’t offer compensation.
• CASE: Whitely v Chappel

  A statute made it an offence ‘to impersonate any person entitled to vote’. The defendant had used the vote of a dead man.

  The statute had required a person to be living in order to vote and the defendant was acquitted - literal rule applied.
• What is the golden rule?

  A softened version of the literal rule where the meaning of the words are considered but will attempt to find a fair result
• What is the narrow version of the golden rule?

  If a word or phrase has 2 possible meanings, the meaning that avoids an unfair/absurd result will be applied
• What is the wide version of the golden rule?

  Where a word only has one possible meaning but will lead to an unfair result.

  The judge will change the meaning of the word/phrase which will lead to a fair outcome.
• CASE: Adler v George

  Under the Official Secrets Act, it was a crime to obstruct a member of the Armed Forces ‘in the vicinity’ of a prohibited place. The defendant was in the prohibited place rather than ‘in the vicinity’.

  The Court deemed it absurd if he wasn’t charged while being in the prohibited place - the narrow version of the golden rule was applied.
• CASE: RE: Sigsworth

  Son had murdered his mother, the mother had now ill so the son was entitled to her estate.

  The Court felt it would be absurd for the son to receive the estate - the wide version of the golden rule was applied - son received nothing
• What is the mischief rule?

  When statutes are interpreted with an emphasis on what Parliament meant, rather than what was literally said.
• What was Heydon’s case?

  The case that brought around the 4 questions that must be answered before utilising the purposive approach.

  • What was common law before the Act was passed?
  • What mischief in common law did Parliament intend to solve?
  • What remedy did Parliament create to deal with the mischief?
  • What was the reason for that remedy?
• CASE: Smith v Hughes

  Street Offences Act - makes loitering in a public place for prostitution an offence.

  The prostitutes had been beckoning passers-by from balconies or windows, which was not technically ’in public’. They were still charged since they were attempting to bother the public - purposive approac applied.
• CASE: Eastbourne v Stirling

  Act said it was an offence for a taxi driver to ‘ply for hire in any street’ without a licence.

  The driver was parked on a taxi rank without a licence. Despite being parked on a rank they were found guilty since he was still likely to get customers from the street - mischief rule applied.
• CASE: Royal College of Nursing v DHSS

  A statute made it legal for only doctors to perform abortions only if certain conditions were satisfied. Changes in science had made hormonal abortions widely used and it was common for nurses to perform these.

  Court ruled it was legal to carry out such abortions since the statute had been created to combat the rise in back street abortions (mischief) - mischief rule applied.
• What is the purposive appraoch?

  When judges focus on the purpose of the law and achieving the intentions of Parliament.
• CASE: R v Registrar General ex p.Smith

  Act stated that an adopted person could obtain a birth certificate when they reach 18 and make a valid application. Smith applied when he was detained and convicted of murder.

  The Court did not allow this since there was a fear he would kill his birth mother - purposive approach applied.
• CASE: R (Quintavalle) v Secretary of State

  The Pro Life Alliance argued that research on embryos created by cell nuclear replacement didn’t have the right to be licensed. This was due to the definition of embryos being ‘a live human embryo where fertilisation is complete’, embryos created using cloning are not fertilised.

  The House of Lords ruled that cloned embryos were covered by the statute - purposive approach applied.
• CASE: Jones v Tower Boot Co.

  Jones was claiming against racial attacks in the workplace. In defence, the company had claimed that they didn’t cause the racial attacks.

  Court held that the act was to ensure the employer kept an eye on the actions of their employees - purposive approach.
• What are intrinsic aids?

  Information that can be found inside the statute itself.

  • Long and short title
  • Preamble
  • Interpretation sections
  • Other sections of the same act
  • Marginal notes and headings (these should not normally be used, however)
• What are extrinsic aids?

  External sources of interpretation used to understand the meaning of legislation.

  • Dictionaries
  • Hansard - reports on debates
  • Case law
  • Historical setting (RCN v DHSS)
• ADVANTAGES OF THE LITERAL RULE

  • Democracy - prevents unelected judges making law
  • Makes law more certain - lawyers can represent their clients effectively
  • Saves time
  • Forces Parliament to be concise when creating statutes
• DISADVANTAGES OF THE LITERAL RULE

  • Assumes that every act is drafted correctly
  • Words may have more than one meaning - unclear
  • Literal decisions may lead to unjust decisions
  • Ignores the intent of legislation
  • Limited flexibility - doesn’t cater to societal changes or extreme circumstances
• ADVANTAGES OF THE GOLDEN RULE

  • When the literal rule is unjust, there is a second option
  • Used sparingly - avoids making law to any great extent and respects Parliament’s authority
  • Avoids absurd outcomes
  • Prevents Parliament from having to pass amending legislation
• DISADVANTAGES OF THE GOLDEN RULE

  • Very limited use - not effective
  • Not possible to predict when it will be used - makes it harder for lawyers
  • Very limited power
  • Hard to define what ‘absurd’ is
  • Doesn’t allow judges to change wording of law - law becomes irrelevant an ineffective
• ADVANTAGES OF THE MISCHIEF RULE

  • Promotes the purpose of law since judges can fill in the gap of law that the Act was designed to cover
  • Law commission prefers this rule
  • More likely to produce a ‘just’ result
• DISADVANTAGES OF THE MISCHIEF RULE

  • Risk of judicial law-making
  • Senior judges do not agree on the use of the mischief rule
  • Uncertainty in law, legal advice is difficult
  • Not as wide as the purposive approach, doesn’t consider the purpose of law
• ADVANTAGES OF THE PURPOSIVE APPROACH

  • Outcomes are often fair (Jones v Tower Boot Co)
  • Judges can take account of new changes in technology (RCH v DHSS)
  • Judges can fill in any gaps in the law left by Parliament or dealing with new situations
• DISADVANTAGES OF THE PURPOSIVE APPROACH

  • Undemocratic since they are interpreting law in a way they consider Parliament meant
  • May be time consuming to find Parliament’s intent
  • Legal advice will be difficult since this approach can create varied outcomes