Statutory Interpretation

Literal Rule

Use the plain, ordinary meaning even if absurd.

Literal Rule Case

Whitely v Chappell (1868) – A man was acquitted of voting fraud because the statute said it was an offence to impersonate a “person entitled to vote” - except the impersonated person was dead and so couldn’t vote.

Golden Rule

Like the literal rule but used to avoid absurdity.

• Narrow – Choose between two meanings (if ambiguous)

• Wide – Modify meaning to avoid absurdity

Golden Rule Case

R v Allen (1872) – The literal meaning of “marry” would make bigamy impossible so the court interpreted it as “going through a marriage ceremony.”

Mischief Rule

Aims to cover/fix the mischief (problem) that the Statute aimed to fix rather than using the Statute word for word.

Mischief Rule Case

Smith v Hughes (1960) – Prostitutes soliciting from balconies weren’t “in the street” but were still convicted because the mischief (problem) was public nuisance.

Purposive Approach

Modern version of the mischief rule - judges look at what Parliament intended the law to achieve (like fixing what mischief the law intended to fix).

Purposive Approach Case

R (Quintavalle) v Secretary of State (2003) – “Embryo” was interpreted to include cloned embryos - to match the purpose of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act.

Intrinsic Aids

• Short title and long title

• Preamble (older Acts)

• Definitions section

• Schedules

• Punctuation

Extrinsic Aids

• Dictionaries (at the time of the Act)

• Hansard (Parliamentary debates) if:

  1. Ambiguous/absurd wording

  2. Clear statement by a minister

• Law Reform Reports

• Interpretation Act 1978 – generic rules like “he includes she”

Human Rights Impact

Judges should interpret statue to conform with HR – using the purposive approach and look for intention of Parliament and ensure it doesn’t breach Human Rights.

Mendoza v Ghaidan (2002)

The Rent Act 1977 stated if a tenant died, an unmarried partner was able to take over the tenancy, “as the person who was living with the original tenant as his or her wife or husband should be treated as the spouse of the original tenant” (provides protection for an unmarried heterosexual partner) BUT this was interpreted by Court of Appeal to conform with the ECHR which forbid discrimination against gender/sexuality - so, same sex couples were given these rights due to purposive interpretation.

EU Law Impact

Purposive approach is used most by EU countries and is adopted by the EU Court of Justice. Despite EU Law no longer existing, when interpreting EU law in this country judges have become accustomed to using it so it is still likely being continued today.