OCR A-Level Law - Making: Statutory Interpretation

What is the literal rule?

The courts take the literal meaning of the words in the act, this may result in absurd results that parliament did not intend to occur

Literal Rule Case - Fisher v Bell (1961)

D had a flick knife in the shop window, that wasn't for sale. The court determined this was merely an 'invitation to treat', so the D wasn't guilty

Law: Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act (1959)

Literal Rule Case - Whitley v Chappell (1868)

D impersonated a dead person to vote, and because dead people aren't 'entitled to vote', he wasn't guilty

Law: Representation of the People Act (1867)

Literal Rule Case - Bentham (2003)

D tricked the Vs into thinking his fingers were a gun. However, you can't own body parts so the D wasn't guilty

Law: Fire Arms Act (1968)

Literal Rule Case - Cheeseman (1990)

The D indecently exposed himself to the police in a public toilet. Police aren't considered people, so the D wasn't guilty

Law: Town & Country Planning Act (1847)

What is the golden rule?

- Wide: Slightly alter the meaning of the word to avoid an absurd result

- Narrow: If a word has a homophone, they will use the more desired one for the case

Golden Rule (Wide) Case - Re Sigsworth (1935)

Next of kin won't inherit the wealth if they caused the deceased's death. D was guilty

Law: Administration of Estates Act (1925)

Golden Rule (Wide) Case - Adler v George (1964)

D was inside a prohibited area. Vicinity refers to the surrounded area of a prohibited place. D was guilty

Law: Official Secrets Act (1920)

Golden Rule (Narrow) Case - Allen (1872)

D tried to marry again without divorcing their current spouse (Bigamy). This is an offence, remarrying is not.

Law: s57 Offences Against the Person Act (1861)

Golden Rule (Narrow) Case - Maginnis (1987)

The D intended to give back their friend's drugs that he had borrowed. This counted as supplying drugs, so they were guilty

Law: Misuse of Drugs Act (1971)

Mischief Rule Case - Heydon's Case (1584)

Mischief rule test:

1) Common law before the Act

2) What was the issue with the Common Law

3) How did the Act try to fix this issue

4) Apply with context

Mischief Rule Case - Smith v Hughes (1960)

Parliament intended to stop people from being bothered by prostitutes, so it didn't matter that the D solicited while upstairs

Law: Street Offences Act (1959)

Mischief Rule Case - Bull (1995)

Male prostitute was found not guilty because parliament intended for it to only apply to female prostitutes

Law: Street Offences Act (1959)

Mischief Rule Case - Royal College of nursing v DHSS (1981)

Nurses and midwifes will now be considered medical practitioners that can perform abortions

Law: Abortion Act (1967)

What is the purposive rule?

The purpose/aims parliament intended when creating the Act

Purposive Rule Case - Pepper v Hart (1992)

Courts allowed teacher to access Hansard to see what circumstances Parliament intended for people to not pay taxes

Law: Finance Act (1976)

Purposive Rule Case - Fitzpatrick v Stirling Housing Association (1999)

Gay couples weren't allowed to inherit tenancy if one of them dies. This was before gay marriage was allowed. Before it was for married couples only.

Law: Rent Act (1977)

Purposive Rule Case - Jones v Tower Boots (1997)

The C was black and was discriminated by the D. The courts decided to take the Act in a more broad view to cover the way the C was discriminated against

Law: Race Relations Act (1976)

Intrinsic aids (Inside the Act)

- Long title

- Preamble: Explains what is covered in the Act and its purpose

- Punctuation (Hanlon v The Law Society (1981))

- Marginal Notes: Added by a draftsman

- Schedules: Detailed explanations at the end of the Act

- Interpretation Sections: Key terms

- Other Act sections

extrinsic aids (Outside the Act)

- Hansard: Written record of things discussed in parliament

- Explanatory notes: In government bills

- International Conventions: Agreements between states

- Dictionaries

- Official Reports: Law Commission or Royal Commission

- Previous laws: Old Acts and previous Common Law

Extrinsic Aids (Hansard) Case - Davis v Johnson (1978)

Lord Denning said that not using Hansard is like "groping in the dark without switching on the light"

Extrinsic Aids (Conventions) Case - Laroche v Spirit of Adventure UK (2009)

The courts looked at the Warsaw Pact to determine whether a hot air balloon is an aircraft