Advantages and disadvantages of the different rules and approaches to statutory interpretation1️⃣2️⃣ Flashcards
(20 cards)
Literal Rule – Advantages
P – The literal rule is democratic.
Dev/I/E:
Development:
It follows the exact wording of Parliament, which is made up of democratically elected MPs.
Impact:
Because of this, the judiciary respects parliamentary sovereignty and does not override the will of Parliament.
Example:
In LNER v Berriman, compensation was denied because the statute only covered “repairing or relaying” tracks, not “maintaining” them.
Literal Rule – Advantages
The literal rule provides certainty in the law.
Dev/I/E:
Development:
Words are given their ordinary meaning, making outcomes predictable and stable across similar cases.
Impact:
Because of this, lawyers can give clear advice and people know what to expect from the law.
Example:
In Partridge v Crittenden and Fisher v Bell, the literal definition of “offer” led to consistent outcomes.
Literal Rule – Advantages
P – The literal rule highlights drafting errors.
Dev/I/E:
Development:
Absurd or unjust outcomes signal that the wording of an Act needs amending.
Impact:
Because of this, Parliament may be prompted to improve the quality of legislation in future.
Example:
Cases like Cheeseman v DPP and LNER v Berriman exposed unclear or limited wording in laws.
Literal Rule – Disadvantage
P – The literal rule can lead to absurd results.
Dev/I/E:
Development:
It applies laws strictly, even if the outcome goes against common sense or justice.
Impact:
Because of this, the intention of Parliament may not be fulfilled.
Example:
In Whiteley v Chappell, a defendant impersonating a dead person was found not guilty because the deceased was not “entitled to vote.”
Literal Rule – Disadvantage
P – The literal rule assumes perfect drafting by Parliament.
Dev/I/E:
Development:
The rule expects lawmakers to have considered every situation, which is unrealistic.
Impact:
Because of this, unfair outcomes can occur when Parliament’s wording misses something.
Example:
In Whiteley v Chappell, the Act didn’t anticipate someone voting in a dead person’s name.
Literal Rule – Disadvantage
P – Words can have multiple meanings.
Dev/I/E:
Development:
Using the literal rule can be problematic where words have more than one interpretation.
Impact:
Because of this, it can be unclear which definition the court should apply.
Example:
In Brock v DPP, the term “type” in the Dangerous Dogs Act led to confusion and debate.
Golden Rule – Advantages
P – The golden rule is largely democratic.
Dev/I/E:
Development:
It is based on the literal rule, which respects the exact wording of Parliament, and only deviates in rare circumstances.
Impact:
Because of this, the opportunity for judges to make law is limited, preserving parliamentary sovereignty.
Example:
In R v Allen, the court applied a logical meaning of “to marry” to avoid making the law ineffective, while still respecting Parliament’s wording.
Golden Rule – Advantages
P – The golden rule is flexible.
Dev/I/E:
Development:
It allows judges to select the most appropriate meaning (narrow approach) or modify a word’s meaning to avoid a repugnant outcome (broad approach).
Impact:
Because of this, absurd or unjust results from the literal rule can be avoided.
Example:
In Re Sigsworth, a son who murdered his mother was denied inheritance, which would’ve been allowed under a literal reading of “issue.”
Golden Rule – disadvantage
P – The golden rule is unpredictable.
Dev/I/E:
Development:
What counts as “absurd” or “repugnant” is based on judges’ personal opinions, leading to inconsistent applications.
Impact:
Because of this, it becomes difficult for lawyers to predict case outcomes and advise clients reliably.
Example:
In Re Sigsworth, there was no way of knowing in advance how the court would interpret “issue.”
Golden Rule – Disadvantages
P – The golden rule has limited use.
Dev/I/E:
Development:
It can only be used in rare cases and is not suitable for fixing all problems in statutory interpretation.
Impact:
Because of this, it cannot prevent every absurd result caused by the literal rule.
Example:
In Whiteley v Chappell, the golden rule could not be used to reinterpret “entitled to vote” to include a deceased person.
Mischief Rule – Advantages
P – The mischief rule promotes the purpose of the law.
Dev/I/E:
Development:
Judges look at the gap in the previous law to interpret what Parliament intended to fix.
Impact:
This leads to outcomes that are more aligned with Parliament’s true aim.
Example:
In Royal College of Nursing v DHSS, nurses were allowed to carry out abortions, as it avoided unsafe practices the Act aimed to stop.
Mischief Rule – Advantages
P – The mischief rule leads to fairer and more just results.
Dev/I/E:
Development:
It avoids absurd results and focuses on addressing the harm Parliament intended to remedy.
Impact:
This makes the law more just and reduces the need for constant amendments by Parliament.
Example:
In Smith v Hughes, prostitutes were found guilty even though they weren’t literally “in the street,” because they were still causing the mischief the Act targeted.
Mischief Rule – Disadvantages
P – The mischief rule allows for judicial law-making.
Dev/I/E:
Development:
Judges may ignore the clear wording of an Act and create new meanings, which can undermine Parliament’s role.
Impact:
This is undemocratic and goes against the principle of parliamentary sovereignty.
Example:
In Royal College of Nursing v DHSS, the court was criticised for effectively rewriting the law to suit modern circumstances.
Mischief Rule – Disadvantages
P – The mischief rule causes unpredictability.
Dev/I/E:
Development:
Identifying the specific mischief the law intended to address can be difficult and subjective.
Impact:
This creates uncertainty in the law, making it harder for lawyers to advise clients.
Example:
In Royal College of Nursing v DHSS, judges were split on the decision, showing how interpretations can vary.
Mischief Rule – Disadvantages
P – The mischief rule has limited scope.
Dev/I/E:
Development:
It only lets judges look backwards at the original problem the law intended to solve, not forward to changing views or society.
Impact:
This can result in outdated interpretations even if Parliament would likely see things differently now.
Example:
In DPP v Bull, a male prostitute was not found guilty because the original report only mentioned women, showing how backward-looking the rule is.
Purposive Approach – Advantages
P – The purposive approach is effective for dealing with new developments in society.
Dev/I/E:
Development:
It allows judges to interpret laws in light of modern situations that Parliament may not have foreseen.
Impact:
This avoids constant amendments and keeps the law up to date.
Example:
In Quintavalle, the Act was applied to embryos created without fertilisation, even though that technology didn’t exist when the law was passed.
Purposive Approach – Advantages
P – The purposive approach avoids absurd results.
Dev/I/E:
Development:
Judges have wider discretion, allowing them to avoid outcomes Parliament would never have intended.
Impact:
This helps uphold justice and protects the public from harm.
Example:
In Ex Parte Smith, the court prevented a mentally ill man with violent tendencies from accessing his birth records, avoiding a potential crime.
Purposive Approach – Advantages
P – The purposive approach aligns with European legal systems.
Dev/I/E:
Development:
European countries commonly use this method, especially in interpreting EU legislation.
Impact:
This ensures consistency and better legal harmony between systems.
Example:
Its use became more common in UK courts when interpreting EU law before Brexit, helping the UK match EU legal practices.
Purposive Approach – Disadvantages
P – The purposive approach leads to judicial law-making.
Dev/I/E:
Development:
Judges may go beyond the words in the Act and apply their own interpretation of what Parliament intended.
Impact:
This is undemocratic and creates uncertainty in the law.
Example:
In Ex Parte Smith, the clear wording of the Act was ignored based on what judges believed Parliament intended.
Purposive Approach – Disadvantage
P – The purposive approach gives judges power over public policy.
Dev/I/E:
Development:
It allows judges to make decisions based on moral or political reasoning, rather than strict legal interpretation.
Impact:
This undermines parliamentary sovereignty and the separation of powers.
Example:
In Mendoza v Ghaidan, judges extended tenancy rights to same-sex couples, a decision some argued should have been made by Parliament.
