Statutory interpretation

Created by

Grace Alexandre

Cards (37)

Statutory interpretation 
When judges interpret the law created by parliament
Reasons for statutory interpretation  
Broad term
ambiguity
drafting error
new developments
changes in the use of language
Broad term  
Some words cover multiple possibilities
Example of broad term 
Dangerous dogs Act 1991:
”any dog the type known as the pit bull terrier“
created confusion as to what was meant by type
Brock v DPP solved this
Ambiguity  
Where a word has 2 or more meanings
Example of ambiguity  
The word ‘stamp’
to stamp on someone
to stamp a parcel
A drafting error  
Council who drafted original bill could have made an error
likely to happen when bill is amended multiple times
New developments  
New technology could mean an old act doesn’t cover present day situations
Example of new developments
Royal collage of nursing v DHSS 1981
held medical science had changed since the abortioon act 1967
Changes in the use of language  
Meanings of words can change
Example of changes in the use of language
Cheeseman v DPP 1990
word ‘street‘ had a different meaning in the ‘health amendment act 1902’ than it does now
Literal rule  
Words given their natural ordinary meanings
follow this rule even if it leads to an absurdity
Cases- literal rule  
Berriman 1946
fisher v bell 1961
whirley v Chappell 1868
Whitley v chapel 1868
where the defendant impersonated a dead person to vote
Berriman 1946  
Railway worker killed doing maintenance
could only claim if he was relaying and repairing
Fisher v bell 1961 
-flick knives displayed in shop window
-offence to sell or offer for sale
-D not committed an offence under literal rule
Golden rule  
-Where Words are modified to avoid absurdity
-when literal leads to absurdity golden may be applied
Tiger wear commissioners v Adamson 1876  
Gave golden rule two approaches
Golden rules approaches
Broad approach
narrow approach
Narrow approach  
Applied where word or phrase has more than one meaning
judges can apply the meaning that avoids absurdity
Broad approach  
Applied where word or phrase has one meaning but that meaning would cause absurdity
judges can modify meaning to avoid this absurdity
Cases- golden rule  
Re sigsworth
r v Allen
Adler v George
R v Allen
—charged with bigamy:where you can only marry one person at a time
-court applied narrow approach
-held that the word marry should mean to go through a wedding ceremony
-d convicted
Re sigsworth  
-Son murderd mother who had not made will
-usually estate go to next of kin which was undeterred
-court said he should not benefit from his crime so applied golden rule to avoid absurdity
Mischief rule  
-Courts ask ‘what mischief was parliament trying to avoid‘
-definition comes from heydons case 1584
Cases-mischief rule  
Smith v hudges 1960
Smith v hudges  
-Prostitues in window
-offence to solit in public place
-held parliament was trying to prevent soliciting so d’s were chaged
Purposive approach  
-Judges look at what paliment meant to achieve
-looks at old and new law
Purposive- cases  
R v smith
pepper v heart
R v smith
double killer applied for birth certificate
hated his adoptive parents
under s1 adoption act register was refused as he could of used that info to commit another offence
AIDS to interpretation
Intrinsic aids
extrinsic aids
Intrinsic aids
used with golden and literal - matters within the statute
Intrinsic aids- what it includes
long title
short title
marginal notes
hadings
Extrinsic aids- what it includes
hansard
rules of language
dictionaries
S4 of human rights act 1998
Cases- intrinsic and extrinsic aids
pepper v heart
laroche v spirit adventure
Laroche v spirit adventure
sudden landing on hot air balloon
if hot air was classified as air caft c would Have failed claim
aircraft was defined as ‘airplane, airship, balloons’
Pepper v heart  
Lord chancellor opposed use of Hansard bc of time and cost