Statutory interpretation example 8 mark answers

Literal Rule – 8 Mark Answer

The literal rule is the approach to statutory interpretation where judges give the words of a statute their plain, ordinary, dictionary meaning, even if this leads to an unjust or absurd outcome. The rationale behind this rule is that Parliament is sovereign, and judges must apply the law as written rather than attempting to rewrite it.

In Fisher v Bell, the defendant displayed a flick knife in his shop window. The court held that this was not an “offer for sale” under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959, as contract law defines this as an invitation to treat. This case demonstrates how the literal rule promotes certainty and predictability in the law.

However, the literal rule can lead to unfair or illogical outcomes, as seen in Whiteley v Chappell, where the defendant was acquitted for impersonating a dead person at an election because the statute referred to a person “entitled to vote”. As a result, the literal rule prioritises certainty over justice.

Golden Rule – 8 Mark Answer

The golden rule is a modification of the literal rule and allows judges to depart from the ordinary meaning of words to avoid an absurd or unjust outcome. It may be applied narrowly, where there is ambiguity, or widely, where the literal interpretation would lead to a repugnant result.

In Re Sigsworth, a son murdered his mother and sought to inherit her estate under the Administration of Estates Act 1925. The court used the golden rule to prevent this outcome, as it would have been morally repugnant to allow a murderer to benefit from their crime. This illustrates how the golden rule allows judges to achieve justice while still respecting parliamentary intent.

However, the golden rule offers limited guidance on what constitutes “absurdity”, which can reduce certainty and allow judicial discretion. Despite this, it strikes a balance between fairness and consistency.

Mischief Rule – 8 Mark Answer

The mischief rule originates from Heydon’s Case and requires judges to consider the defect or “mischief” that the statute was intended to remedy. Judges then interpret the statute in a way that suppresses the mischief and advances the remedy.

In Smith v Hughes, prostitutes were soliciting from windows and balconies rather than the street itself. Although they were not literally “in the street”, the court held that they were guilty under the Street Offences Act 1959 because the mischief Parliament intended to prevent was the harassment of passers-by. This demonstrates the flexibility of the mischief rule.

The mischief rule allows the law to adapt to changing circumstances but can undermine certainty, as it permits judges to look beyond the literal wording of the statute. It also risks judicial law-making.

Purposive Approach – 8 Mark Answer

The purposive approach requires judges to interpret statutes in light of Parliament’s overall purpose and intention, rather than focusing solely on the wording or a specific mischief. This approach often involves the use of extrinsic aids such as Hansard and is commonly used in EU and human rights cases.

In R (Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health, the House of Lords interpreted the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 to include embryos created through new scientific techniques not envisaged at the time the Act was passed. This shows how the purposive approach allows the law to remain effective in modern contexts.

However, the purposive approach grants judges significant discretion and may undermine parliamentary sovereignty by allowing judges to effectively create law. Despite this, it is considered the most flexible and modern approach to statutory interpretation.