What are the 4 rules judges can use when interpreting an Act?
- Literal rule
- Golden rule
- Mischief rule
- Purposive approach
What is the Literal rule?
Where judges look at the literal/definition meaning of the words in an Act and apply that meaning to the case
What are the 2 cases for the literal rule?
- LNER v Berriman (1946)
- DPP v Cheeseman (1990)
Summarise the LNER v Berriman Case
V was oiling the tracks when he was hit by a train and killed. His widow is suing LNER under the Fatal Accidents Act 1846, that stated LNER must provide a look-out when a worker is ‘repairing or relaying’ the tracks. The court declared oiling as ‘routing maintenance’ so LNER were not liable.
Summarise the DPP v Cheeseman Case
D was found masturbating in a public toilet after police were sent to survey the area. He was charged under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847. The act said the police must be ‘passengers’ to the situation. A ‘passenger’ was defined as anyone using a street for ordinary purposes. The court declared the police were not passengers. D was acquitted.
What is the structure for an essay explaining a rule of statutory interpretation?
Explain how the rule works in general:
Definition/Explanation of what the rule/approach does:
-What are the judges looking at?
-How strictly doe they follow the wording?
-Are there any guidelines/limits on the use?
Case Examples (2 examples):
- What D (or V) was doing
- The statute name and wording being interpreted
- Literal meaning of the words
- The interpretation the court took and why they took it
- The decision and outcome
What are the 4 advantages of the literal rule?
- Provides certainty within the law - always follows wording - DPP v Cheeseman used dictionary meaning - keeps law fair and consistent
- Saves judges’ time - Judges just have to apply the words - DPP v Cheeseman - judge simply applied the definition - leads to swift justice and more cases being dealt with
- Respects parliamentary supremacy - follows exact wording of statutes - LNER v Berriman judges refused to include ‘maintaining’ as it wasn’t included by parliament - good as it’s parliament’s job to make good laws.
- Respects separation of powers - Judges do not change or create law - DPP v Cheeseman - judge merely used the dictionary meaning - means judges are sticking to their role.
What are the 4 disadvantages of the literal rule?
- Leads to absurdity - follows the wording strictly - LNER v Berriman - absurd that V was not entitled to a lookout - bad decisions will be made.
- Doesn’t apply to words with multiple meanings - R v Allen literal rule could not be used - makes it difficult to apply and is rarely used.
- Assumes perfection in drafting - judges follow exact wording - LNER v Berriman - Parliament may have wanted a lookout to be provided for V - means parliament’s intention is not actually fulfilled.
- Does not allow for judicial creativity - judges have to follow the exact wording - LNER v Berriman - judges had to use the old wording - law may be outdated and parliament will have to fix the law so the rule doesn’t lead to absurdity.
What are the two approaches of the golden rule?
- Narrow Approach
- Broad Approach
What is the narrow approach of the golden rule?
When a word has two or more meanings, the judge can decide which meaning is most relevant to the case and applies that meaning.
What is the broad approach of the golden rule?
Where words have one clear meaning but that meaning would lead to an absurd result, the court can modify the statute to avoid the problem.
What are the two cases for the golden rule?
- R v Allen (1872)
- Re Sigsworth
Summarise R v Allen
D was charged with bigamy under the OAPA 1861 after trying to marry another woman whilst married. There were two meaning to the word ‘marry’. The court chose the meaning of ‘to go through a wedding ceremony’ in order to find D guilty of bigamy, as it was impossible to ‘legally marry’ another woman.
Summarise Re Sigsworth
D murdered his mother and she hadn’t given a will. The Administration of Estates Act 1925 said that the ‘son would inherit as the mother’s issue (child)’. The court did not want to give him the inheritance as he killed her. So they wrote a condition that stated a child will inherit unless ‘the issue has murdered the deceased’.
What are the 4 advantages of the golden rule?
- Avoids absurdity
- Puts parliament’s intention into practice
- Applies to words with multiple meanings
- Allows for judicial creativity
What are the 4 disadvantages of the golden rule?
- Creates uncertainty
- Goes against Parliamentary Supremacy
- Narrow approach is inflexible
- Does not respect separation of powers
What is the mischief rule?
Where judges interpret the statute and find the mischief (problem) that parliament where trying to stop. They then follow the statute in a way that stops the mischief.
What are the 4 questions about the guidelines of the mischief rule (given from Heydon’s Case 1584)?
- What was the common law before the Act was made?
- What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide?
- What was the remedy Parliament created to cure the mischief?
- What was the reason behind the remedy?
- Select 2 of these to put in the intro of mischief rule essay
What are the 2 cases for the mischief rule?
- Smith v Hughes (1960)
- Royal College of Nursing v DHSS (1981)
Summarise Smith v Hughes
Some prostitutes were trying to attract people from a window on a street. The court were interpreting the Street Offences Act 1959 which stated the it was a crime for prostitutes to loiter in a public place. The mischief being stopped was prostitutes harassing passers by. The prostitutes were found liable.
Summarise Royal College of Nursing v DHSS
The Abortion Act 1967 stated that only ‘medically registered practitioners’ (only doctors) could carry out abortions. However, parliament were trying to stop women having unsafe abortions so the court decided to allow nurses as ‘medically registered practitioners’.
What are the 4 advantages of the mischief rule?
- Avoids absurdity
- Puts Parliament’s intention into practice
- Creates flexibility in the law
- Allows for judicial creativity/saves Parliament’s time
What are the 4 disadvantages of the mischief rule?
- Creates uncertainty
- Goes against Parliamentary Supremacy
- Limited to fixing one problem at a time
- Does not respect separation of powers
What is the purposive approach?
Where judges look for the purpose of the act and will interpret the act to achieve this.
-
Elements of Crime44
-
Statutory Interpretation40
-
Parliamentary Law Making23
-
Law Reform15
-
Delegated Legislation23
-
Non-Fatal Offences55
-
Sentencing24
-
Criminal Courts19
-
Magistrates7
-
Juries20
-
Judicial Precedent37
-
Negligence27
-
Nuisance25
-
Rylands v Fletcher18
-
Involuntary Manslaughter33
-
Offer & Acceptance18
-
Consideration16
-
Murder19
-
Voluntary Manslaughter27
-
Civil Courts, ADR and Tribunals55
-
Classification15
-
Occupier’s Liability34
-
Intoxication7
-
Duress and Necessity13
-
Robbery and Burglary24
-
Insanity & Automatism12
-
Attempts12
-
Self Defence10
-
Consent14
-
Vicarious Liability14
-
Performance and Breach9
-
Frustration11
-
Privity6
-
Intention6
-
Misrepresentation22
-
Economic Duress5
-
Remedies10
-
Classification6
-
Incorporation15
-
Implied Terms10
-
Exclusion Clauses6
-
Eval16
-
Law & Morals6
