Statutory Interpretation:

Cards (9)

  • Literal rule - Judge will take the exact grammatical definition of the term to interpret the statute.  The courts will give words their plain, ordinary and literal meaning. ​Example of this rule are shown in the case of Berriman Case (LNER v Berriman (1946)) and Whitely v Chappell (1868)​.
  • Golden rule - The rule is a modification of the literal rule.  It starts by looking at the literal meaning of words, but the judge is then allowed to avoid an interpretation that would lead to an absurd result.   There are two views on how far the golden rule can be followed which are the narrowed and wide approach.
  • The narrow view ​
    ​Lord Reid Jones v DPP (1962) ​- “IF THEY ARE CAPABLE OF MORE THAN ONE MEANING, THEN YOU CAN CHOOSE BETWEEN THOSE MEANINGS BUT BEYOND THIS YOU CANNOT GO”​. The court can therefore, under this rule choose between the possible meanings of a word or phrase.  If only one meaning, then it must be taken. ​
  • Or, the words only have one clear meaning, but if the interpretation of that word would lead to a repugnant situation, the judge will modify the words in an Act to avoid that problem. 
  • Narrow Case Example - Adler v George (1964)
    A broader Approach Case Example: ​Re Sigsworth (1935) ​
  • Gives the Judge more discretion when interpreting legislation. This rule was laid down in Heydon’s case in the sixteenth century. Judges should consider four questions when reaching an interpretation of the legislation:​
    1. What was the common law before the making of the act?​
    2. What was the problem, or ‘mischief’, the statute was trying to remedy?​
    3. What was the remedy Parliament was trying to provide?​
    4. What was the true reason of the remedy? ​
  • The court should look to see what the law was intended to do in order to discover the gap or ‘mischief’.  Then interpret the Act in such a way that the gap is covered. ​
    The judge will apply the solution regardless of the words of the Act. Judges can ‘jump’ straight to this approach.
  • Mischief rule example - Smith v Hughes (1960) ​
  • It may often rely on the use by judges of extrinsic aids to help detect the intention of Parliament and/or the mischief that preceded the passing of the Act.  ​