Statutory Interpretation

What is statutory interpretation and what does it involve?

It is the process by which appellate courts determine the meaning and application of new legislation. It involves interpreting the words and phrases in statutes to clarify their intent and apply them to specific cases.

What is the literal rule?

This is where judges apply the plain, ordinary, and grammatical meaning of words in a statute, even if it leads to an absurd or undesirable outcome.

What does the literal rule respect?

Respects Parliamentary sovereignty by adhering strictly to the wording of the law as well as the Separation of Powers theory which states that as Parliament are our law-making body, it is not for judges to change the law and become law-makers.

What does the literal rule promote?

It promotes certainty and predictability in the law.

What is a case where the literal rule was used and what happened?

In DPP v Cheeseman, police officers had been stationed outside of a public bathroom to catch the defendant committing an indecent act, as he had been reportedly doing this repeatedly. However, as the police officers were not ‘passengers’ according to the 1847 dictionary and were instead stationed, the defendant was not guilty.

What is the golden rule?

It is a modification of the literal rule that allows courts to depart from the literal, ordinary meaning of words if doing so leads to an absurd, inconsistent, or repugnant result.

When is the golden rule used?

It is used when the literal interpretation would lead to an outcome that is clearly contrary to the intention of Parliament.

What is a case where the golden rule was used and what happened?

R v Allen - the defendant went through a wedding ceremony while still being married to another person. It was determined that if ‘marry’ meant ‘legally marry’ in s.57 OAPA, Parliament would have created an offence that was impossible to commit, so it was interpreted that ‘marry’ should mean ‘go through a ceremony of marriage’. Allen was convicted.

What are the advantages of the golden rule?

It prevents absurd or unreasonable results, as shown by Allen, provides flexibility in interpretation while respecting statutory wording and respects the separation of powers, arguably more than the literal rule, because the exact words are adhered to except in limited situations. The only assumption is that Parliament never intends to pass an absurd law, which is quite reasonable.

What are the disadvantages of the golden rule?

It allows for judicial law making which can be argued as undemocratic, judges applying ‘common sense’ to avoid absurdities replaces words written by Parliament and the rule lacks a definition of what an absurdity is, making the law uncertain and legal advice difficult.