Statutory Interpretation

• Statutory Interpretation is what judges do when they are trying to understand (interpret) the wording of an Act of Parliament (statute) needed for case they are hearing.
• Is needed because:

  1. Act of Parliament may not be clear.
  2. Words change their meaning over time.
  3. Some wording can be ambiguous
  4. Acts of Parliament cannot cover all eventualities.
• Rules of Statutory Interpretation:

  1. Literal Rule
  2. Golden Rule
  3. Mischief Rule
  4. Purposive Approach
• Literal Rule:

  • When judge applies law in its plain, literal and ordinary meaning, even if it leads to an absurd decision which does not make sense.
  • R v Judge of the City of London Court 1892, Lord Esher said:
  • "If words of an act are clear then you must follow them even though they lead to manifest absurdity.
  • The court has nothing to do with the question whether the legislature has committed an absurdity"
• Literal Rule:

  Features of the literal rule include:

  • Judges will often use an Oxford English Dictionary from time law was made to work out meaning of specific words used in an Act.
  • This rule respects Parliamentary Supremacy and Separation of Powers as it doesn't allow judges to make laws.
  • It was the original rule used in the 19th Century, until use of newer rules became common.
• Literal Rule:

  • Whiteley v Chappell 1968
  • LNER v Berriman 1946
  • R v Harris 1836
  • DPP v Cheeseman 1990
• Whiteley v Chappel 1868:

  • D impersonated a dead man to vote.
  • Law said it is illegal to impersonate someone entitled to vote.
  • NOT GUILTY as dead people can't vote.
• LNER v Berriman 1946:

  • Man killed whilst oiling points on train tracks.
  • Compensation only allowed for 'relaying or repairing' line.
  • NOT ALLOWED as not classed as repairs.
• R v Harris 1836:

  • D bit victim's nose.
  • Law said it is illegal to 'stab, cut or wound'.
  • NOT GUILTY as biting was not explicitly included in the law.
• DPP v Cheeseman 1990:

  • D caught masturbating in public toilets by police who were waiting to catch him at it.
  • Law said it was illegal to expose yourself to 'passengers in the street'.
  • NOT GUILTY as the police officers were stood still, so weren't passengers.
• Golden Rule:

  • When the judge follows the literal rule, until the decision would be absurd, in which case they make the common sense decision.
  • Are 2 ways in which Golden Rule could be applied:

  1. The Narrow Approach
  2. The Wide Approach
• Golden Rule:

  • The Narrow Approach:
  • Where word or phrase is capable of more than one meaning, the court can choose between those possible meanings.
  • If there is only one meeting, then that meaning must be taken.
  • R v Allen 1972
  • Adler v George 1964
• Golden Rule:

  • The Wide Approach:
  • Where word or phrase has one clear meaning but that meaning would lead to an absurd situation that the court feels should not be allowed, then the court is allowed to modify the words of the statute to avoid this problem.
  • Re Sigsworth 1935
• Golden Rule - The Narrow Approach:

  • R v Allen 1972:
  • D married two women
  • Bigamy Law said it is illegal to marry more than one person.
  • However this was impossible as a second marriage would never be a valid marriage.
  • Guilty as 'marry' interpreted to mean 'go through marriage ceremony'
• Golden Rule - The Narrow Approach:

  • Adler v George 1964:
  • D found inside a restricted military base.
  • Law said it was illegal to be 'in the vicinity' of the base (but not inside)
  • GUILTY as 'in the vicinity' interpreted ti include inside the base too.
• Golden Rule - The Wide Approach:

  • Re Sigsworth 1935:
  • Man killed his mother but still stood to inherit her fortune.
  • There was nothing in the law which forbid this.
  • He was NOT ALLOWED to inherit as the court fell to allow it would be 'repugnant'.
• Mischief Rule:

  • When the judge has more flexibility and is able to look for the 'mischief' or problem with society that law was trying to deal with, and then makes decision that addresses that problem.
• Mischief Rule:

  • comes from Heydon's Case (1584) where court said there are 4 things for judge to consider:

  1. What was the law before making the Act?
  2. What was the mischief/gap in the law which the previous law did not provide a solution?
  3. What was the remedy Parliament was trying to provide?
  4. What was the reason for the remedy?
• Mischief Rule:

  • Smith v Hughes 1960
  • Royal College of Nursing v DHSS 1981
  • Corkery v Carpenter 1951
• Smith v Hughes 1960:

  • Women were prosecuted for soliciting their services from private balconies.
  • The law made it illegal to do this in public.
  • GUILTY as the 'mischief' the Act tried to deal with was soliciting, and as they could be seen by the public this was included, even though they were technically in private.
• Royal College of Nursing v DHSS 1981:

  • The Abortion Act made it legal for doctors to carry out abortions.
  • Claim made for nurses to be able to do these as well.
  • ALLOWED as the purpose of the Act was to make abortions safe and avoid 'backstreet abortions' - nurses were qualified.
• Corkery v Carpenter 1951:

  • Licensing Act forbid someone to be drunk and in charge of a 'carriage'.
  • D was riding his bike while drunk.
  • GUILTY as the 'mischief' was drunk people making the roads unsafe, and this included by a bike.
• Purposive Approach:

  • an updated version of the Mischief Rule, but it does not require a problem to exist with previous law. It simply asks, what was the purpose for the law?
  • The is the rule used by the European Court of Justice:
  • Many languages used across EU, using Literal Rule (or even Golden Rule) in European Court would not have worked due to translation issues.
  • The UK Courts have favored this rule more recently to fall in line with EU courts.
• Purposive Approach:

  • R(Quantavalle) v HFEA 2003
  • R v Registrar General ex parte Smith 1990
• R(Quantavalle) v HFEA 2003:

  • Challenge was made to the courts by the Pro Life Alliance when the HFEA carried out research on cloned embryos, which aren't fertilised.
  • The Human Fertilisaton and Embryology Act 1990 had granted HFEA permission to research into fertilised embryos.
  • Research allowed to continue as the purpose of the law had been to allow scientific research into embryos - it was not important if they were fertilised or not.
• R v Registrar General ex parte Smith 1990:

  • Act allowed people who had been adopted to obtain their birth certificate when over 18.
  • D applied for birth certificate, but was in prison for murder, and had killed another inmate as he hallucinated that the inmate was his birth mother.
  • NOT ALLOWED access to his birth certificate as the purpose of the Act was to reunite adopted children and birth parents - not to put birth parents lives at risk.