Statutory Interpretation - Interpretation Of Law By Judges

Question 1

Literal rule

Answer 1

Looks at the natural, plain, ordinary meaning of a word/phrase. The rule often makes use of a dictionary to get the meaning. Most common rule as it respects parliament the most -> least controversial
Lord Esher (1982): If the words of an Act are clear you must follow them, even if they lead to a manifest absurdity.

Question 2

Literal cases

Answer 2

Whiteley v Chappel- the law stated it was an offence to ‘impersonate why person entitled to vote’. D used the vote of a DEAD person. He was found not guilty because dead people cannot vote.
Fisher v Bell- the law stated it was an offence to ‘sell or offer for sale an offensive weapon’. D was displaying flick knives in his shop window. He was found not guilty. Displaying items is an ‘invitation to treat’ not an offence for sale

Question 3

Golden rule

Answer 3

Extension of literal rule. Rule used if literal rule is likely to cause absurd outcomes. Literal meaning is used but modified

Question 4

Narrow approach

Answer 4

Words are ambiguous (more than one meaning) the court can only choose between the meanings of words or phrases.
R v Allen- offence to commit the crime of bigamy (marry someone else while still married) under S57 OAPA 1861. Issue: the word marry has 2 meanings: legally married or ceremonial marriage. Judge picked ceremonial -> guilty

Question 5

Broad/ wide approach

Answer 5

Where words are clear but would lead to injustice or absurdity, the courts can modify/alter the meaning within the context of the act.
Addler v George- under the Official Secrets Act there was an offence to ‘obstruct’ HM forces in the vicinity of a prohibited place. D argued that he was INSIDE the prohibited place, not in the vicinity of it. D was found guilty as the judge interpreted ‘in the vicinity ‘ to INVOLVE the prohibited place

Question 6

Mischief rule

Answer 6

When the judge looks at the ‘problem’ (mischief( the law was trying to resolve when it created the law

Question 7

Mischief cases

Answer 7

Heydons:
1. What was the common law before making the act?
2. What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide?
3. What was the remedy Parliament passed to cure the mischief?
4. What was the true reason for the remedy?
Smith v Hughes- the Street Offences Act 1959 made it illegal to solicit on the street. A prostitute then started soliciting from a window. Guilty- mischief still being done

Question 8

Purposive approach

Answer 8

Used where the words of the Act are unclear. The judge must decide what they believe Parliament meant to achieve so they are looking to see what the purpose of the Act was. Modern day approach used for statutes. Broader approach than mischief looking at what Parliament was trying to achieve. Will look at the context of the act and other aids to find true intentions

Question 9

Purposive case

Answer 9

Jones v Tower Boot co- Mr Jones suffered racial harassment from his coworkers. The company argued it wasn’t in the ‘course of employment ‘ as it wasn’t connected to his job. D was found guilty under VL as the purpose of the laws was to stop harassment and racism