Aids to Statutory Interpretation and Construction Flashcards
(11 cards)
Which of the following is an example of an internal (intrinsic) aid to statutory interpretation?
A. The long title of the Act
B. Law Commission reports
C. Hansard
D. Ministerial guidance
A. The long title of the Act
Explanation: The long title helps reveal the Act’s scope and purpose and is found within the Act itself.
What condition must be met for a court to consult Hansard under Pepper v Hart?
A. The legislation must be ambiguous, obscure, or lead to absurdity
B. The case must be criminal in nature
C. The parties must agree to admit external materials
D. The judge must declare a human rights incompatibility
A. The legislation must be ambiguous, obscure, or lead to absurdity
Explanation: The Pepper v Hart rule allows Hansard only in limited, defined circumstances.
What type of external aid would most likely help a court understand a technical legal term in a statute?
A. Schedules
B. A legal dictionary
C. The interpretation clause
D. Case precedent
B. A legal dictionary
Explanation: Legal dictionaries help judges determine the technical or ordinary meaning of words at the time of enactment.
A judge is unsure how to interpret “employment tribunal” in a statute. They consult the interpretation section of the Act. This is an example of:
A. Literal rule
B. Use of an internal aid
C. Use of an external aid
D. Application of a common law presumption
B. Use of an internal aid
Explanation: The interpretation section defines terms within the statute itself, aiding precise application.
A statute restricts “vehicles” in pedestrian zones. The judge reads a Law Commission report noting the aim was to reduce engine noise. What interpretive aid is this?
A. Internal aid
B. Parliamentary privilege
C. Schedule
D. External aid
D. External aid
Explanation: Law Commission reports are external aids that clarify the legislative purpose or mischief.
A judge refers to a schedule attached to an Act to interpret how licensing procedures work. What is the function of schedules?
A. To repeal outdated provisions
B. To record committee discussions
C. To detail supplementary rules linked to the Act
D. To explain court interpretations
C. To detail supplementary rules linked to the Act
Explanation: Schedules expand on main provisions by providing technical, procedural, or tabular detail.
What is a risk of over-reliance on external aids like Hansard or explanatory notes?
A. They are always binding
B. They may blur the line between interpretation and legislation
C. They are banned in civil cases
D. They override the Act itself
B. They may blur the line between interpretation and legislation
Explanation: Critics argue external aids invite judicial creativity, risking judicial overreach.
A court uses Pepper v Hart to review Hansard, where a minister clearly stated the meaning of a disputed term. Which rule allows this?
A. Expressio unius
B. Purposive approach
C. Mischief rule
D. Pepper v Hart exception
D. Pepper v Hart exception
Explanation: This case allows courts to consult Hansard if three criteria are met — including clarity and ambiguity in the Act.
When using the purposive approach, which aid is most likely to clarify Parliament’s objective?
A. Schedules
B. Explanatory notes
C. Interpretation clause
D. Law Commission reports
D. Law Commission reports
Explanation: These reports explain the problem the Act was meant to solve, supporting purposive and mischief interpretations.
A UK statute is passed to implement a United Nations convention on disability rights. Which external aid may the court use to interpret it consistently with that treaty?
A. Domestic case law precedent
B. Hansard
C. Interpretation clause
D. The international treaty itself
D. The international treaty itself
Explanation: Where a statute is enacted to fulfil an international obligation, courts can consult the treaty text to clarify Parliament’s purpose.
A judge is interpreting a statute containing a term previously interpreted in a similar case. What kind of interpretive tool is the judge relying on?
A. Explanatory notes
B. Precedent as an external aid
C. Mischief rule
D. Pepper v Hart exception
B. Precedent as an external aid
Explanation: Previous judicial decisions interpreting similar wording are a valuable external aid, especially when consistency is needed.
