statutory interpretation

• Statutory interpretation

  The process by which judges decide what a statute (law) means and how it should be applied/interpreted
• When a case is being decided in court, the judge must apply the relevant law
• The law may have come from a past cause (a precedent), but it is far more likely that the law will have come from an act of parliament
• It is estimated that 50% of High Court cases and 90% of cases in the supreme court involve interpretation of statutes
• Reasons judges need to interpret an act

  • Ambiguous words - R v Allen
  • Words may change meaning overtime - Flack V Baldry
  • Impact of Human Rights - Ghadin Godin V Mendoza
  • Social, medical and technological changes - Royal collage of nursing v DHSS
• There are 4 main approaches or rules developed by judges to be able to interpret an act : literal rule, golden rule, mischief rule and purposive rule
• A judge can pick and choose which 'rule' he wants to use
• Literal rule


  This rule gives all the words in a statute their original and natural meaning (dictionary meaning). Under this rule, the literal meaning must be followed, even if the result is absurd.
• Application case for literal rule

  • Whitley V Chappell 1868 - Whitley was impersonating a dead man when voting. The judge decided the word 'person' in the act could only mean living people, not dead people. The court found the defendant not guilty as he impersonated a dead person.
• Advantages of the literal rule

  • Respects parliamentary sovereignty - judges are clearly following the law parliament made
  • Gives the courts a restricted role - this keeps the separations of powers as they are
• Disadvantages of the literal rule


  • Zander in the law-making process describes the literal rule as 'mechanical, divorced from the realities of the use of language and from the aspirations of the human beings concerned … In that sense it is irresponsible' (key quote) - this suggests judges are being too robotic
  • Can lead to injustice and absurdity
• How the golden rule works

  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 the light of the statute as a whole
• Application case for the golden narrow rule

  • R V Allen 1872 where the defendant was found guilty as the judge gave the words 'shall marry' a secondary meaning
• Golden narrow rule


  Judges give words a secondary meaning
• Application case for the golden broad rule

  • Re Sigsworth where the son wasn't allowed his mum's inheritance, after murdering her, due to public policy reasons as parliament wouldn't want such a verdict
• Golden broad rule


  The judge finds an alternative interpretation as they know parliament wouldn't intend the verdict
• Golden rule

  • Can prevent absurdity and injustice caused by the literal rule
  • The rule provides no clear meaning of what is an absurd result
  • Absurdity is a subjective concept and the judge may differ where they find the absurdity
• Mischief rule


  A rule used by judges to examine the defect in the law that parliament was trying to remedy
• Heydon's case (1584) 4 part test


  1. What the law was before the law was passed

  2. What problem or 'mischief' the statute was trying to remedy

  3. What remedy parliament was trying to provide

  4. What was the real reason for this remedy
• Application case for the mischief rule

  • Royal College of Nursing V DHSS- (abortion act 1967)

  This case focused on women getting abortions safely, regardless of whether they go to a doctor or not. So the court ruled nurses could give abortions as the point of the act was to stop backstreet abortions
• Advantages of the mischief rule

  • Avoids injustice

  Promotes flexibility
• Disadvantages of the mischief rule

  • Outdated, rule may be less appropriate now that the legislative process is different to Heydon's case 1584
• Purposive rule


  Looks at the intention of Parliament and is not restricted to the defect in the old common law
• Most judges now have stopped using the literal rule and will now use the purposive rule
• Most EU judges prefer to use the purposive rule as it helps to break down any language barriers
• Application case for the purposive rule

  • Jones V Tower boot - Jones was able to sue his employer as the purpose of the act was to protect employees at all times
• Advantages of the purposive rule

  • Allows judges to look beyond the strict language of the law and achieve a just and reasonable outcome that upholds the legislative intent
• Disadvantages of the purposive rule

  • It is difficult to discover the intention/purpose of Parliament
• Presumption

  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
• Rebutting a presumption

  Presenting the opposite of the presumption to the court
• S.2 of the Human Rights Act 1998 applies to every act of Parliament
• Judges must ensure they don't discriminate and abuse someone's human rights
• Legislation does not operate retrospectively
• Laws cannot be backdated and applied in the past
• Presumptions

  • All crimes require mens rea
  • Strict liability offences do not require mens rea, only actus reus (e.g. speeding, parking on a yellow line, littering, pollution)
• Intrinsic aids

  1. Interpretation section

  2. Short title

  3. Long title
• Interpretation section

  • R V Bogdal (defining public place)
• Short title

  Gives the title of the act
• Long title

  Gives the definition of the offence