Statutory Interpretation

• Statutory interpretation are the rules that judges can use to interpret the meanings of words in statutes.
• There are three rules:

  1. Literal Rule
  2. Golden Rule
  3. Mischief Rule
• There is also the purposive approach.
• The literal rule is that the words will be given their ordinary meaning, even if the result won't be sensible.
• Lord Esher said that judges should apply the law as it is written and should not alter or make it.
• Parliament are our supreme law makers and they are elected. Judges are neither. Therefore there must be separation of power.
• Whiteley v Chappell: The defendant tried to impersonate a dead man when voting. He was found not guilty because a dead person is not entitled to vote. This was an absurd verdict.
• Cheeseman v DPP: Police officers who are stationed in a place are not "passengers"
• The golden rule is when the judge uses the literal meaning but then is allowed to avoid an interpretation which can lead to an absurd result.

  Becke v Smith
• There are two types of interpretation: narrow and wide.
• Narrow interpretation is when there are two possible meanings and the judge can choose between them.
• Wide interpretation is when words have only clear meaning, however, that meaning would lead to an undesirable result.

  Allen

  Sigsworth
• The mischief rule aims to identify the gap in the law which the act was passed to remedy. This rule comes from Heydon's Case.
• Heydon's Case:

  1. What was the common law before the statute was made?
  2. What was the mischief rule for which the common law did not provide?
  3. What was the remedy the Parliament resolved, what was the problem the act wanted to remedy?
  4. Why was the act needed?

  Smith v Hughes