statutory interpretation

intro - issue (if they are guilty under the act)

• literal rule - judge gives the words contained in a statute their ordinary meaning, even if this causes an absurd result - Whitley v Chappel

not guilty using the literal meaning of ‘illegal substances’ - only took legal drugs

guilty - s4(b) - L contributed to the reckless driving

• golden rule - if the literal rule causes an absurd result the judge can take a more flexible approach, using a narrow or wide approach - Adler v George

guilty -

• mischief rule - judge looks for the mischief the statute was passed to remedy - Heydon’s case, judges must consider:

1. what the common law was before the making of the act

2. what the mischief & defect for which the common law did not provide

3. what remedy did parliament appoint

4. the reason for the remedy

- Smith v Hughes

guilty - using hansard the judge would find that parliament intended to prevent road deaths caused by drivers being under the influence of drugs

• purposive approach - judges look for the aim or purpose of the act - Jones v Tower Boot Company