Statutory interpretation

• statutory interpretation 


  This is the process whereby a judge 'works out' the meaning of a statute (an Act of Parliament) and applies the law to a case before them.
• 3 rules of SI

  • The literal rule, the golden rule and the mischief rule
• Literal rule


  Simplest of the rules Definition - the judge looks at the wording of the act and rigidly enforces the literal meaning of the words in it. This gives words their plain,ordinary meaning.
• Literal


  Whiteley v Chappel 1968: Not guilty of impersonating someone entitled to vote because dead person was not entitled to vote
• LNER co. v Berriman 1946 - literal


  Not literally 'relaying or repairing' track so widow could not get compensation
• The Golden Rule

  Only used if the literal rule creates a problem

  In two circumstances:

  1. The word has more than one meaning: use the most sensible one;
  2. To prevent a repugnant (absurd ) outcome
• Golden Rule


  Adler v George 1964

  • Official Secrets Act (1920) made it an offence to be found ‘in the vicinity of a prohibited place’.
  • The accused was arrested inside the prohibited place and so argued that he could not be convicted.
  • Lord Parker used the golden rule and held that ‘in the vicinity of’ could mean being ‘in’.
• Golden Rule


  R v Sigsworth 1935

  • A son had murdered his mother.
  • The Estate Administration Act stated that in the absence of a will the next of kin should inherit all of a person’s possessions.
  • The court ruled that this should not apply in this case as it would be repugnant for a murderer to benefit from their crime.
• The Mischief Rule

  The definition:

  The court should look to see what the law was before the Act was passed in order to discover what gap or ‘mischief’ the Act was intended to cover. Courts should then interpret the Act in such a way that the gap is covered.
• The Mischief Rule


  Smith v Hughes 1960

  • he Street Offences Act stated that it was illegal for “prostitutes to loiter or solicit in a public place or a street for the purpose of prostitution”.
  • The ladies concerned were behind windows or on a balcony.
  • The women were found guilty even though they were not “in a public place or street”.
• Mischeif Rule


  Eastbourne Borough Council v Stirling 2000: - Taxi driver charged with 'plying for hire in any street' without license - Found guilty, as although taxi was on private land, he was likely to get customers from the steet. Court referred to Smith v Hughes and said it was the same point.
• The purposive approach

  • A judge will look at an Act and attempt to judge what Parliament’s intention was concerning the issues in the act. 
  • This goes beyond the mischief rule in that the court is not just looking at the gaps in the old law, but trying to understand just what was intended in the original Act.
• Purposive rule 


  R v Registrar- General, ex parte Smith 1990 - The court refused to grant an application by the appellant for judicial review of the refusal of the Registrar General to provide him with the information necessary to enable him to obtain a certified copy of the record of his birth and/or to provide counselling prior thereto. The facts are stark and disturbing.