Statuatory interpretation

• • When a case is being decided in court, the judge must apply the relevant law.
  • This law may have come from a precedent , but it is more likely it has come from an act of parliament.
• What is statutory interpretation?

  The process by which judges decide what a statute means and how it should be interpreted.
• There are 4 reasons why a judge would need to interpret an act:

  1. Ambiguous words - R v Allen
  2. Words may change meaning over time - Flack v Baldry 
  3. Impact of Human rights - Ghaidan v Mendoza
  4. Social,medical and technological changes - Royal college of nursing v DHSS
• 4 Rules to statutory interpretation

  • There are 4 main approaches or rules developed by judges to be able to interpret an act, A judge can pick and choose which use they want to use:

  1. Literal rule
  2. Golden rule
  3. Mischief rule
  4. Purposive rule
• The literal rule

  • This rule gives all the words in a statute their ordinary and natural meaning.
  • Under this rule the literal meaning must be followed, even if the result is absurd.
  • Definition case for literal rule:
  • Lord Esher said in R v judge city of London: ‘if the words of an act are clear, you must follow them, even though they lead to a manifest absurdity.
• What is the application case for the Literal rule?

  • Whitely v Chappell  - D voted in the name of someone who had recently died but was on the electoral register, there was a law which made it an offence to impersonate any person entitled to vote at an election.
  • Held not guilty as when the impersonation had occurred, the person was dead, and that as a dead person is not entitled to vote, so the offence has not been committed.
• The Golden rule

  • If the literal rule gives an absurd result which parliament could not have intended, then  and only then the judge can substitute reasonable meaning in light of the statute.
  • Definition case: Grey v Pearson - Lord Wensleydale states:
  • ‘Words can be modified to avoid the absurdity but no further’
• Application of Golden narrow - R v Allen D was charged with bigamy as he was discovered to have 2 wives, but he argued that he was not “married” to his second wife. It was held that the words shall marry had 2 meanings, 1. Lawful marriage, 2. Going through the ceremony of marriage.

  D was guilty, as to avoid absurdity they constituted the meaning of 2.
• • Application case for Golden broad - Re Sigsworth- The use of Broad golden rule has been demonstrated in Re Sigsworth, where a son had murdered his mother, who did not leave a will. The law said her estate should go to her son. The court said that it would be absurd to allow a murderer to profit, and that no one should benefit from their own wrongdoing.
• The mischief rule

  • The mischief rule is used to allow the judge to examine the defect in the law that Parliament was trying to remedy.
  • Definition case: Heydon's Case 4 Part test:

  1. What was the law before the statute passed
  2. What problem or mischief was the statute trying to remedy 
  3. What remedy was Parliament trying to provide
  4. What was the real reason for this remedy
• MISCHIEF - Application case: Royal college of nursing v DHSS

  1. What was the law before the statue? - Abortion was illegal
  2. What was the mischief? - Women were dying from backstreet abortions
  3. What remedy was provided? - Abortions were now legal
  4. What was the real reason for this remedy? - To stop back street abortion and ensure women's safety
• The Purposive rule

  • This rule looks at the intention of parliament and it is not restricted to the defect in the old common law.
  • Definition case: Magor St mellons: Lord denning stated - ‘We sit here to find the intention of parliament and do it best by filling in the gaps, rather than opening language up to destructive analysis’. 
• Purposive - Application case: Jones v Tower Boot - The claimant had been a victim on repeated racial abuse at work, and left, then sued for unfair dismissal. Employers are liable for discrimination done by their employers. It was held that the employer was liable, as the purpose of the act was to prevent discrimination at any time, not just work periods, so they should have prevented this behaviour.
• Presumption

  • A presumption is something the court will take for granted, believe, understand the law to be this way before the case even comes to court.
  • All judges will make presumptions about the law
  • If the opposite of that presumption is presented to the court, we say the presumption is rebutted.
• what are the 3 presumption?

  1. S.2 HRA 1998 Applies to every act of parliament 
  2. Legislation does not operate retrospectively
  3. Presumption that all crimes require MR
• Intrinsic aids are sources within the statute itself which help judges interpret law.

  These consist of long and short titles. Long title of an act often explains what the purpose of the act is, interpretation section and most importantly rules of language:
• These are Ejusdem generis – words of the same kind, the judge looks for a list of specific words followed by a general world, this has been demonstrated in the case of:

  • Powell v Kempton racecourse (1899): 
  • D was charged with running an illegal bettong stall at a racecourse
  • Act said it was illegal to gamble in a ‘house,office, room or  other place for betting’
  • Held: The court decided that his stalls were not an “other place” as it was outside and all the other places are listed inside. Therefore he was not guilty.
• Expressio unius est exclusio alterius – express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of others, this means there are no general worlds with a list in the Act, so the judge must interpret the act to only include things in the list.

  demonstrated in Re Inhabitants of Sedgley - statute raised taxes on ‘lands, houses and coal mines’ The judge had to decide whether the tax applied to a limestone mine. Held no , the list excluded other things, it only applied to coal mines, not other mines.
• Noscitur a sociis – a word draws its meaning from those around it: the judge looks at words in the context of the act as a whole, and interprets accordingly.

   demonstrated in Pengelly V Bell Punch: Court had to decide whether a floor used for storage came under the Factories act 1961 whereby ‘floors, steps, stairs, passageways and gangways’ must be kept free from obstruction. Held - all the other words were used to indicate passage or movement, a floor used exclusively for storage did not fall within the act.
• Intrinsic aids provide a structured way for judges to interpret unclear statutory wording using the act itself.

  Extrinsic aids are external sources which help judges interpret statutes when the law is unclear. They come from outside the Act itself. 
• Examples of extrinsic aids are dictionaries; sometimes dictionaries of the time the act was passed can be used to help interpret what the words in the act meant at that time.

  • This has been demonstrated in the case of Flack v Baldry, where the dictionary meaning of discharge was emit rather than physical ejection, so stun gun was included in the Firearms act 1968. 
• Law commission reports can be used to try and find the intention of parliament, as acts of parliament may be based on law commission reports, 

  • as seen in the case of Davis V Johnson.
•  Hansard is a political document that details everything that is said in Parliament. 

  • This has been demonstrated in Pepper v Hart, where it was held that Hansard should only be used as a last resort.
•  The Human rights act 1998 incorporates into UK law the ECHR. 

  Section 3 requires that so far as it is possible to do so legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the convention rights. 

  • As seen in the case of Ghaidan V Mendoza.
• Human rights act 1998 - Section 2 requires the courts take into account any relevant judgements from the ECtHR, but they are not bound by them.

  • If it is impossible to find an interpretation which is compatible with the convention the courts can issue a declaration of incompatibility under section 4.
  • Belmarsh case