Statutory interpretation

Statutory interpretation

Statutory interpretation(def)

process by which a court looks at a statute and determines meaning.

Statute=Law

what are the 4 rules?

Literal rule: the plain, original, literal or dictionary meaning of words

Golden rule: it is a modification of literal rule and used by judges who wish to avoid an absurd or unjust situation

Mischief rule: rule is applied to find out what Parliament MEANT, to prevent the mischief the Act is aimed to.

Purposive approach: a modern descendant of the mischief rule, where the Court considers what Parliament intended to be the purpose of the statute. This involves looking at Hansard; Looks at what Parliament SAID and MEANT.

What are the 2 approaches of the golden rule?

Board approach: if there is only one literal meaning but applying that would cause an absurdity

Narrow approach: allows the judge to choose the one meaning that is applying so the one that avoids absurdity

Literal rule(+/- ; 2 cases)

+: -makes law more certain

-makes easier for people to know what the law is

-prevents unelected judges from making law

-: -words have more than 1 meaning

-can lead to unfair decisions

Case 1: London and North Eastern Railway V Berriman ( he was killed while maintaining the railway line and didnt get compensation as Act referred to repairing and relaying lines)

Case 2: Fisher V Bell (he didnt get convicted as flick knives were not an “offer” on display in shops but an invitation to treat)

Golden rule(+/- ; 2 cases)

+: -allows to choose the most sensible meaning

- avoids the worst problems of the literal rule

-: -only in limited situations

- impossible to predict when the court is gonna use it

Case 1:Re Sigworth ( murdered his mum in order to get an inheritance, he was convicted and didnt get the inheritance as it would lead to an absurdity)

Case 2: Adler V George ( The defendant was IN the prohibited area, rather than “in the vicinity” , which was an offence, he was convicted, as GR allowed to extent the meaning of the word)

Mischief rule(+/- ; 2 cases)

+: -promotes the purpose of the law

- fills in the GAP IN THE LAW( Purposive ap. does NOT do it)

-: -not as wide as PA

-limited to looking back at the old law

-can make the law uncertain

Must be used ONLY in case of AMBIGUITY!

Case: Smith V Hughes ( Prostitutes solicited from balconies when were banned to do it in a public places, they were charged as the activities of the defendants were within the mischief the Act was aimed at)

Purposive approach(+/- ; case)

+: -leads to justice in individual cases

-allows for new developments in technology

-: -difficult to find Parliaments intentions

-allows judges to make law

-leads to uncertainty in the law

Case: R V Registerar ( the court denied applicants request on having the birth certificateas he was suspected on trying to find and murder his birth mum)

What is the Hansard? + Case

It is the record of the debate, the discussion of what Parliament said

E.g. Pepper V Hart ( The teacher relied upon the Hansard where ministers gave circumstances where taxes would not be payable, when he was expected to pay tax on the perk he received in the form of the reduced school fees) After this case HofL relaxed the rule and accepted that Hansard could be used in a limited way

Where Hansard should be used?

-legislation is ambiguous or obscure

-leads to an absurdity

-must be a statement by the minister who introduced the Act

-when looking at an Act which resulted from a European Directive that has been made into English law

USEFUL in a PA*

Extrinsic/Intrinsic aids (def.)

External aids - things that found outside the act(e.g. Hansard, earlier case law, the historical context)

Internal aids - things that can be found within the act that may help to clarify the meaning of the Act ( Long, short titles, Introduction)

impact of EU + case

EU law uses the purposive approach:

• interpreting national law in the light and the aim of EU law

• has made our judges more ready to use the PA

• Marleasing case

Impact of HRA 1998 + case

legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the rights in the ECHR - Mendoza v Ghaidan