Statutory interpretation

Definition of statutory interpretation

Where it falls to the courts to interpret the words of the statute to try and work out what parliament intended when it was passed.

Why do we need statutory interpretation

Broadness of language - Dangerous dogs act, Ambiguity R v Bassett, a drafting error, a new development, changes in the use of language.

The literal rule

This method of statutory interpretation is that judges should just interpret the words on the page using their exact meaning no matter whether it causes a miscarriage of justice. This is the traditional view based on parliamentary sovereignty - parliament should be the only one making laws and judges should follow it verbatim. e.g London and North Eastern Railway company v Berriman.

Literal rule advantages

• Judges respect and apply the will of parliament (supremacy)

• More democratic – means unelected judges do not make law.

• More predictable – easier for people to understand what the law is & how judges apply it.

• Increased certainty – it should be interpreted exactly as it is written.

Literal rule disadvantages

• This rule assumes every Act will be correctly drafted – assumes Parliament gets it right everytime.

• Doesn’t give effect to what Parliament ‘intends’ – rather just the wording.

• Can lead to poor decisions becoming precedent.

• Words often have more than one meaning.

• Can lead to unfair/unjust decisions (Berriman).

• Professor Michael Zander said the rule is “mechanical and divorced from the realities of the use of language”.

The golden rule narrow approach

This is very similar to the literal rule just that when a word or section with two possible meanings comes up the most appropriate meaning is chosen not necessarily the one written down.

Golden rule broad approach

This is an extension of the other that allows for the complete changing of a word or section if interpreting the case that way would lead to absurdity.

The mischief rule

This method looks at the ‘mischief’ the act was trying to remedy and that uses it to remedy that even if the specific statute did specify the facts of the case. e.g. Smith v Hughes

The purposive approach

This is the broadest of them all and looks at the intention of the legislature not just the words or the mischief. The judge here is looking at what gap parliament was trying to fill with the legislation and looks at the positive social purpose and context of that law. e.g. Jones v Tower Boot Company

Advantages of the purposive approach

• The approach gives effect to parliament’s true intentions

• the approach avoids harsh and destructive language analysis

• the approach avoids absurdity and injustice of the more literal approaches

Disadvantages of this approach

• The approach can only be used if the judge can find the intention of parliament which can be hard

• is there actual parliamentary intent

• arguably the judge being given this power to look for intent is excessive and dangerous as it goes against parliamentary supremacy

• Could be argued to be making law not interpreting it.