Statuatory Interpretation

Question 1

Statutory interpretation is needed because of problems such as:

Answer 1

• Failure of legislation to cover a specific point
• a broad term
• ambiguity
• drafting errors
• new technological developments

Question 2

What is the literal rule

Answer 2

Taking the plain grammatical meaning of the Act

e.g. Whiteley v Chappell (1858)

Question 3

What is the golden rule?

Answer 3

Allows modification of words where the literal rule would lead to absurdity, repugnance or inconsistency

e.g. Adler v George (1964)

Question 4

What is the mischief rule and what are the four points the court should consider?

Answer 4

Considers the ‘mischief’ or gap in the old law and interprets the Act in such a way that the gap is covered (Heydon’s case 1584)

1. What was the common law before the Act?
2. What was the mischief for which the common law didn’t provide?
3. What was the remedy by the Parliament?
4. What was the true reason of the remedy?

e.g. Smith v Hughes (1960)

Question 5

What is the purposive approach in statutory interpretation?

Answer 5

The courts look to see what is the purpose of the law passed by parliament

e.g. R v Registrar-General (1990)

Question 6

A v D of the literal rule *

Answer 6

A: - follows wording of parliament

• prevents unelected judge making law
• makes law more certain
• easier to predict the judges’ interpretation

D: - not all acts are perfectly drafted (Whiteley v Chappell)

• some words have more than just one meaning (Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 [‘type’])
• can lead to unjust decisions (Berriman 1946)

Question 7

A v D of the Golden rule *

Answer 7

A: - respects the words of parliament

• allows the judge to choose the most sensible meaning
• avoids the worst problems of the literal rule

(Re Sigsworth - Golden rule led to a just decision)

D: - can only be used in limited situations

• not possible to predict when courts will use it
• it is a ‘feeble parachute’ (Zander) - it can’t do very much
• It is a subjective decision that gives the judge too much discretion - what is ‘absurd’?

Question 8

A v D of the mischief rule *

Answer 8

A: - deals with the mischief parliament was trying to deal with (Smith v Hughes)

• fills in the gap in the law
• produces a ‘just’ result

D: - risk of judicial law making (subjective like in Smith v Hughes)

• not as wide as the purposive approach
• limited to looking back at the old law
• can make the law uncertain

Question 9

A v D of the purposive approach *

Answer 9

A: - leads to justice in individual cases

• allows for new developments in technology ( R v Secretary of State)
• avoids absurd decisions

D: - difficult to find parliament’s intention

• allows judges to make law (subjective)
• leads to uncertainty in the law

Question 10

What is the ‘ejusdem generis’ rule of language in Acts?

Answer 10

General words which follow a list are limited to the same kind

e.g. ‘stone, concrete, slag or other similar material’ in Hobbs v Robertson Ltd stated that brick wasn’t an ‘other similar material’

Question 11

What is the ‘expressio unius’ rule of language in Acts?

Answer 11

The express mention of one thing excludes others

e.g. Tempest v Kilner didn’t have a general word after the list so it only meant the words in the list and nothing else

Question 12

What is the ‘noscitur a sociis’ rule of language in Acts?

Answer 12

A thing is known by the company it keeps

e.g. Inland Revenue Commissioners v Fere: ‘interest’ on its own could have meant any interest but since after it said ‘other annual interest’ , the court decided that it was only ‘annual interest’ and nothing else

Question 13

Intrinsic aids to statutory interpretation are…

Answer 13

…those in the Act and include:

The short title and preamble
Interpretation sections
Headings
Schedules

Question 14

Extrinsic aids to statutory interpretation are…

Answer 14

…those not included in the act:

Previous Acts of Parliament
The historical setting
Earlier case law
Dictionaries 
Hansard
Law Commission reports
International conventions

Question 15

A v D of intrinsic aids *

Answer 15

A: -Some of these are put by parliament to make the law clearer to interpret
- In some statutes there are definitions of words (e.g. Theft Act 1968 ‘building’ applies to an ‘inhabited vehicle or vessel’ )

D: - not included in every statute (modern ones don’t have a long preamble)

• confusion when there is no definition (e.g. Theft Act 1968 had no definition for ‘dishonestly’)
• What is put by the printers doesn’t always accurately reflect parliament intention

Question 16

A v D of using Hansard *

Answer 16

A: - access to all discussions around the statute gives an insight of parliament intentions
- (e.g. AE Beckett v Midland Electricity 2001 where the Hansard ‘immediately made clear what had previously been obscure’)

D: - additional costs for lawyer expensive hours to read through Hansard
- sometimes the statements made by the minister in the debate were not clear enough to take into account.

Question 17

A v D of using reports by law reform agencies *

Answer 17

A: - problems in the current law are identified and in many cases, a draft bill is included as a suggested alternative.

D: - Law Commission reports are only available for limited areas of law. The other problem is any of the proposals or draft bills might have been rejected by government so that Parliament’s intention differs from the report.

Question 18

What are the effects of the Human Rights Act 1998 on statutory interpretation?

Answer 18

• Legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
• This does not include areas where human rights are not involved.

(e.g. Mendoza v Ghaidan (2002) the Human
Rights Act impacted on the interpretation of the Rent Act 1977.)