{ "@context": "https://schema.org", "@type": "Organization", "name": "Brainscape", "url": "https://www.brainscape.com/", "logo": "https://www.brainscape.com/pks/images/cms/public-views/shared/Brainscape-logo-c4e172b280b4616f7fda.svg", "sameAs": [ "https://www.facebook.com/Brainscape", "https://x.com/brainscape", "https://www.linkedin.com/company/brainscape", "https://www.instagram.com/brainscape/", "https://www.tiktok.com/@brainscapeu", "https://www.pinterest.com/brainscape/", "https://www.youtube.com/@BrainscapeNY" ], "contactPoint": { "@type": "ContactPoint", "telephone": "(929) 334-4005", "contactType": "customer service", "availableLanguage": ["English"] }, "founder": { "@type": "Person", "name": "Andrew Cohen" }, "description": "Brainscape’s spaced repetition system is proven to DOUBLE learning results! Find, make, and study flashcards online or in our mobile app. Serious learners only.", "address": { "@type": "PostalAddress", "streetAddress": "159 W 25th St, Ste 517", "addressLocality": "New York", "addressRegion": "NY", "postalCode": "10001", "addressCountry": "USA" } }

Advantages and disadvantages of the different rules and approaches to statutory interpretation1️⃣2️⃣ Flashcards

(20 cards)

1
Q

Literal Rule – Advantages

P – The literal rule is democratic.

A

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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Literal Rule – Advantages

The literal rule provides certainty in the law.

A

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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Literal Rule – Advantages

P – The literal rule highlights drafting errors.

A

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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Literal Rule – Disadvantage

P – The literal rule can lead to absurd results.

A

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.”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Literal Rule – Disadvantage

P – The literal rule assumes perfect drafting by Parliament.

A

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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Literal Rule – Disadvantage

P – Words can have multiple meanings.

A

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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Golden Rule – Advantages

P – The golden rule is largely democratic.

A

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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Golden Rule – Advantages

P – The golden rule is flexible.

A

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.”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Golden Rule – disadvantage

P – The golden rule is unpredictable.

A

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.”

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Golden Rule – Disadvantages

P – The golden rule has limited use.

A

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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Mischief Rule – Advantages

P – The mischief rule promotes the purpose of the law.

A

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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Mischief Rule – Advantages

P – The mischief rule leads to fairer and more just results.

A

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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Mischief Rule – Disadvantages

P – The mischief rule allows for judicial law-making.

A

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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Mischief Rule – Disadvantages

P – The mischief rule causes unpredictability.

A

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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Mischief Rule – Disadvantages

P – The mischief rule has limited scope.

A

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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Purposive Approach – Advantages

P – The purposive approach is effective for dealing with new developments in society.

A

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.

17
Q

Purposive Approach – Advantages

P – The purposive approach avoids absurd results.

A

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.

18
Q

Purposive Approach – Advantages

P – The purposive approach aligns with European legal systems.

A

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.

19
Q

Purposive Approach – Disadvantages

P – The purposive approach leads to judicial law-making.

A

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.

20
Q

Purposive Approach – Disadvantage

P – The purposive approach gives judges power over public policy.

A

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.