Statutory interpretation

SECTION 1: ENGLISH LEGAL SYSTEM

1. Statutory Interpretation

1.1 Introduction

  • Many Acts, or statutes, are passed by Parliament each year.

  • The intended meanings of these laws should be clear; however, this is not always the case.

  • To aid in understanding statutory meaning, Parliament includes definition clauses within statutes, termed 'interpretation sections'.

1.2 Common Law Rules of Interpretation
1.2.1 The Literal Rule

  • Developed in the early 19th century and remains a primary rule in application.

  • Judges apply the literal rule by interpreting words based on their plain, ordinary, or literal (dictionary) meanings, even if it leads to nonsensical outcomes.

  • Quotation from Lord Esher in R v Judge of the City of London Court (1892):
    "If the words of an act are clear then you must follow them even though they lead to a manifest absurdity."

  • Example: In the Theft Act 1968, definitions of 'theft' are found in sections 1 and 2-6 that outline key terms.

  • Judges may also determine meanings for terms not explicitly defined within statutes, using established rules of interpretation.

Case Examples of the Literal Rule

  • Whiteley v Chappell (1868): The defendant impersonated a deceased person. The court ruled he was not guilty because a deceased is not literally 'entitled to vote'.

  • London and North Eastern Railway Co. v Berriman (1946): The court found that oiling points did not constitute 'repairing' under the Fatal Accidents Act. Thus, the claim for compensation failed.

  • Fisher v Bell (1961): A shopkeeper displayed a flick-knife. The court found no offense under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act because a display is an 'invitation to treat', not an offer in contract law.

1.3 Evaluation of the Literal Rule
Advantages

  • Ensures that judges apply laws exactly as written by Parliament, reflecting democratic principles.

  • Enhances legal certainty since the law is interpreted strictly by the wording.

Disadvantages

  • Assumes perfect drafting of statutes, which is often not the case (example: Dangerous Dogs Act 1991).

  • Words may carry multiple meanings, leading to potential ambiguities.

  • Strict application can cause unjust outcomes, as criticized by Professor Michael Zander who described it as "mechanical".

1.2.2 The Golden Rule

  • Modifies the literal rule: starts with the literal meaning but allows avoidance of absurd interpretations.

Narrow Application of the Golden Rule

  • Relevant view from Lord Reid in Jones v DPP (1962): The literal meaning must not be stretched or used in a way that does not reasonably bear.

  • Example: Adler v George (1964): Defendants obstructed forces at a prohibited place. The court ruled they were guilty, interpreting 'vicinity' within '-in or in the vicinity of-'.

  • Example: R v Allen (1872): The defendant argued his marriage was void, but the court interpreted 'shall marry' to mean the act of going through a ceremony.

Wider Application of the Golden Rule

  • Used when a single clear meaning leads to an unacceptable result.

  • Example: Re Sigsworth (1935): A son murdered his mother; the court modified inheritance rules to prevent the murderer from benefitting from his crime.

1.4 Evaluation of the Golden Rule
Advantages

  • Respects legislative wording with limited exceptions and allows judges to adopt sensible meanings.

  • Prevents absurd situations as seen in Re Sigsworth (1935).

Disadvantages

  • Extremely limited in usage and predictability, with infrequent application.

  • Criticism from Michael Zander as a "feeble parachute", suggesting it's a weak fallback.

1.5 The Mischief Rule

  • Provides judges with discretion in interpreting legislation compared to the previous rules.

  • Originates from Heydon's Case (1584) outlining four inquiries:

    1. What was the law before the Act?

    2. What mischief did the Act intend to address?

    3. What remedy did Parliament intend to enact for that mischief?

    4. What was the purpose of that remedy?

Example of the Mischief Rule

  • Coates v Crown Prosecution Service (2011): The court interpreted 'motor car' to include a Segway scooter based on the law’s purpose to regulate traffic safety.

Evaluation of the Mischief Rule
Advantages

  • Flexibility allows judges to address the gaps intended to be fixed by Parliament.

  • Preferred for achieving legislative intent; endorsed by Law Commission recommendations.

Disadvantages

  • Risks judicial law-making, as judges interpret and modify statutory language.

  • Potential for legal uncertainties affecting advice to clients.

2. Rules of Language

  • In addition to major interpretative rules, judges employ specific language rules:

    • Ejusdem generis: General words following a specific list are confined to the same kinds as the specifics.

    • Expressio unius exclusio alterius: The mention of one thing excludes others not mentioned.

    • Noscitur a sociis: Words are understood by their context or accompanying terms.

Examples of Rules of Language

  • Ejusdem Generis: In Hobbs v CG Robertson Ltd (1970), the term 'similar materials' did not include brick, as it was softer than those specified.

  • Expressio Unius: In Tempest v Kilner (1846), the statute did not cover stocks or shares as they were not explicitly mentioned.

  • Noscitur a Sociis: In Inland Revenue Commissioners v Frere (1965), 'interest' was confined to 'annual interest' due to context.M

3. Aids to Interpretation

3.1 Intrinsic Aids

  • Features within a statute that clarify meanings may include:

    • Long titles explaining parliamentary intent.

    • Preambles within older statutes outlining purposes.

    • Headings and schedules attached to the Act.

3.2 Extrinsic Aids

  • Information outside the Act aiding interpretation includes:

    • Previous legislation on the topic.

    • Historical context.

    • Dictionaries relevant at the time of enactment.

Key Extrinsic Aids

  • Hansard: Official report of parliamentary debates, although previously excluded as an aid until relaxed by Pepper v Hart (1993), permitting its use to resolve ambiguities.

  • Reports from law reform bodies and international conventions can also inform legal interpretation.

4. Impact of EU Law & Human Rights Act 1998

4.1 European Approach

  • Judges incorporate the purposive approach in alignment with EU law interpretations.

4.2 Human Rights Act 1998

  • Section 3 impacts interpretation, requiring laws to be read compatibly with the ECHR.

Case Example:

  • A and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2004): Court found indefinite detention under the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 was incompatible with the ECHR, leading to law revisions.