Literal rule 8m
Courts give words their plain, ordinary or literal meaning despite the result
Lord Esher, R v Judge of the city of London court, if words of an are clear then you must follow them even thought they lead to a manifest of absurdity
Example - using a dictionary of the time as done in Cheeseman
Used in the case Berriman and resulted in an absurd result and a woman couldn’t receive compensation and didn’t fulfil the act’s purpose - ‘relaying and repairing’
Used in Cheeseman - ‘passengers’
Whiteley v Chappell - “entitled to vote”
Literal rule 12m
Adv, respects parliament supremacy, judges aren’t accused of law making
Adv, law is more certain, can’t be misinterpreted, can plan for outcome
Adv, highlights issues to parliament, amendments made
Adv, democratic
Disadv, assumes perfect act, parliament may not have said what they meant, errors in law
Disadv, words have multiple meanings, court confusion
Disadv, ignores change in meaning, outdated law
Disadv, unjust results, Berriman, injustice
Disadv, parliament can’t cover every situation, whiteley v chappell, cant predict
Golden rule 8m
Modification of the literal rule
If the literal rule produces an absurdity, courts can use other meanings
Lord Blackburn, an absurdity so great… justify the court putting them in some other signification
Narrow application, choose between meanings, if 1 meaning then must be used, Allen used different defintion of marry to avoid letting a man marry 2 women
Wide application, 1 meaning that would be absurd then can modify the words of the statute to avoid, Re Sigsworth
Golden rule 12m
Adv, parliaments intentions used, no need to create new laws, saves time
Adv, respects supremacy, correct errors within act framework, judge freedom without making laws
Adv, escape from unjust results, Re Sigsworth, less errors
Disadv, no guideline on when/how to use, up to judges which rule to follow, however makes the law flexible
Disadv, leads to unpredictable results, don’t know which definition chosen, hard to advise
Disadv, undemocratic, too much power to judges, not public view
Disadv, narrow approach has limited use as it can only be used when there’s multiple defintion
Mischief rule 8m
Defined in Heydon’s case
Consider common law before act, the mischief the common law didn’t provide, what remedy did parliament resolve, the true reason for the remedy
judges…make such construction as shall suppress the mischief and advance the remedy
discover what gap/mischief the act should cover and interpret the act to do so
Smith v Hughes - took an interpretation on the words “in a street” to avoid allowing prostitution in public
Royal college of nursing and the abortion act
Mischief rule 12m
Adv, it’s flexible, adapted to each case to meet the specific aim of it, less errors/injustice
Adv, statute continues to fit intended purpose, no need for amendments, saves time
Adv, law commission recommended it to be the only rule used
Disadv, undemocratic, judicial law making, upsets public as not elected body to represent them
Disadv, uncertainty, can’t predict when it will be used and what the outcome is, hard to advise
Disadv, judges don’t always agree on its use (royal college of nursing case)
Disadv, not as wide as purposive, limited to old laws
Purposive approach 8m
Judges decide what they believe parliament meant to achieve (purpose of the act)
consider broader context in which the law was created
Lord Denning, Magor and St Mellons v Newport, find out the intention of parliament and carry it out
Maunsell, purpose and interpret words according to purpose
Lord Scarman disagreed and thought it was wrong to not take the literal words
Jones v Tower Boot - “in the course of employment” was interpreted to avoid discrimination at work
Quintavelle v Secretary of State,
Purposive approach 12m
Adv, it’s flexible, adapted to each case to meet the specific aim of it, less errors/injustice
Adv, statute continues to fit intended purpose, no need for amendments, saves time
Adv, judges can look at new technology introduced after the act, royal college of nursing (now use drugs so can be done by nurses)
Disadv, undemocratic, judicial law making, upsets public as not elected body to represent them
Disadv, uncertainty, can’t predict when it will be used and what the outcome is, hard to advise
Intrinsic aids 8m
Assist judges to help to find parliament’s intentions
Must be a part of the statute itself
words of the statute
any sections of the act where words are defined
the long title (sets out purpose)
short title
preamble (parliaments purpose in enacting the statute)
headings before groups of sections, schedules attached or marginal notes
may have an interpretative deviation where the principles of the act are set out (arbitration act 1996)
Extrinsic aids 8m
Assist judges to help to find parliament’s intentions
Other materials outside the statute
Undisputed aids - previous acts on the same topic, the historical setting, earlier case law and dictionaries of the time (used in Cheeseman)
New acceptable aids - Hansard (official report of what was said when the act was debated - pepper v hart, statement made by financial secretary), reports from law reform agencies, international conventions/ regulations/ directives implemented in English Law
Interpretation act 1978
- words of masculine or feminine gender applies the same
- singular and plural are the same
- month means calendar month
- land means any building/structure
