Topic 2: Statutory Interpretation

What are statutes?

• Legislation / Act of Parliment made by the Parliament which judges must follow in courts

Why might a judge have diffculty interpreting Parliament’s statues?

Judges must interpret a word or phrase from the statute which can be crucial for the outcome of the case

• Words used may be so broad and ambigious as to cover several situations. May not be clear what meaning to use of the word

• The meaning of words change overtime

• New developments such as technology or social issues can affect how a statue is applied as an old Act may not cover current situations

What are the 4 main rules judges use when interpretating statues?

• Literal Rule

• Golden Rule

• Mischief Rule

• Purposive Approach

Literal Rule

• Judges give words in an Act of Parliament their ordinary, natural and dictionary meaning, even if this leads to an unfair or absurd outcome

• Case example - Whiteley v Chappell: A statute made it an offence to impersonate "any person entitled to vote". The defendant impersonated a dead person. Using the literal rule, the court held that a dead person is not literally "entitled to vote", so the defendant was found not guilty

• Case example - London and North Eastern Railway Co v Berriman: A railway worker was killed while maintaining the track. His widow claimed compensation under a regulation that required lookouts for workers "relaying or repairing" the track. The court used the literal rule and decided that routine "oiling and cleaning" was maintenance, not relaying or repairing, so her claim failed

Advantages and disadvantages of Literal Rule

Ads:

• Quick + easy to apply

• Paliament sovereignty is respected

• Creates certainty in the law as the public know jusdges will take the word literally

Disads:

• If there is more than one possible meaning to a word than this rule will be hard to apply

• Can lead to unfair and absurd results - LNER v Berriman

• Can allow criminals to escape liability because of loopholes in the wording of legislation

Golden Rule

• The golden rule involves interpreting the words in an Act using their ordinary, natural meaning, unless this would lead to an absurd or unjust outcome. In this situation, judges can modify the meaning of the words to avoid the absurdity

There are two approaches:

• Narrow approach: Where a word has more than one meaning, judges choose the meaning that avoids an absurd outcome

• Wide approach: Where a word has only one meaning, the judge may depart from its ordinary meaning to avoid an absurd or unjust outcome

Golden Rule case example - Re Sigsworth

A son murdered his mother, who had no will. Under the Administration of Estates Act 1925, the next of kin would inherit her estate. The court applied the golden rule to prevent him from benefiting from his crime.

Advantages and disadvantages of the Golden Rule

Ads:

• Prevents absurd outcomes (Re Sigsworth)

• Parliamentray sovereignty is respected

• Court can easily make correlations

Disads:

• Can only be used in limited circumstances to avoid absurd result (cannot be used to avoid unfair results - LNER v Berriman)

• No guidelines on how to use the rule - unpredictable

Mischief Rule

• The mischief rule involves judges interpreting legislation by looking at the gap or problem in the law (the mischief) that Parliament intended to fix. Judges interpret the Act in a way that remedies this problem

• Case example - Smith v Highes: The Street Offences Act 1959 made it an offence for prostitutes to loiter or solicit "in a street or public place". The defendants were soliciting from a balcony and behind window panes, not strictly on the street. The court looked at the mischief the Act intended to cure and decided that the women were guilty because they were still soliciting people in the street, even though they were not physically in it.

Advantages and disadvantages of the Mischief Rule

Ads:

• Flexible - allows the law to be applied as Parliament intended

• Avoids absurd and unfair results

Disads:

• Finding intention of parliament is difficult - judges could be guessing

• Somewhat out of date - purposive approach is more appropriate to use now

Purposive Approach

• The purposive approach involves judges interpreting legislation by looking at the wider purpose or intention behind the Act, rather than focusing only on the exact wording used by Parliament. The difference between the mischief rule and the purposive approach is that the mischief rule focuses on the problem Parliament intended to fix when passing the law, whereas the purposive approach looks at what Parliament would have wanted the law to achieve in a current situation

• Case example - R v Registrar-General, ex parte Smith: Smith had been adopted and wanted access to information about his birth parents. The law generally allowed adopted people to access their original birth records. However, Smith was a double-murderer who wanted the certificate to find his birth mother, posing a severe danger to her. The court used a purposive approach to rule that Parliament never intended a statute to be used to facilitate a future crime

Advantages and disadvantages of the Purposive Approach

Ads:

• Flexible - allows judges to cope with situations that were unforeseen by Parliament

• Avoids absurd outcomes

• Helps achieve Parliament's overall intention

Disads:

• Gives judges greater power, potentially undermining parliamentary sovereignty

• Can create uncertainty because judges may interpret the purpose differently

Internal (intrinsic) Aids

• Internal aids are clues found within the Act itself that judges use to help interpret the meaning of unclear words or phrases

Examples:

• Title of the Act - gives an indication of the Act's overall purpose

• Preamble - explains the purpose and reasons for introducing the Act

• Headings and subheadings - help explain what each section of the Act is about

• Schedules - provide additional details and information relating to the Act

• Interpretation section - provides specific meanings of words used within the Act

External (extrinsic) Aids

• External aids are sources outside the Act itself that judges can use to help interpret unclear words or phrases.

Examples:

• Hansard - the official record of debates in Parliament, which can show what Parliament intended. Since Pepper v Hart, consulting Hansard for the purpose of statutory interpretation is now permissible but only where the words of the Act are ambigious

• Dictionaries - help judges establish the ordinary meaning of words

• Earlier case law in which the Act was used - help judges understand the meaning of current legislation

• Human Rights Act 1998

• The Interpretation Act 1978

• Previous Acts of Paliament on the same topic