Case Law Flashcards
(33 cards)
Whitely v Chappel (1868) LR 4 QB 147
A statute made it an offence ‘to impersonate any person entitled to vote.’ The defendant used the vote of a dead man. The statute relating to voting rights required a person to be living in order to be entitled to vote.
Held:
The literal rule was applied and the defendant was thus acquitted.
Golden Rule
Look at the literal meaning but prevent it resulting in ‘manifest absurdity’ -
Cases:
Adler v George case (1964)
A major disadvantage of The Golden Rule is that judges can technically change the law by changing the meaning of words in statutes. They can, potentially infringing the separation of powers between legal and legislature.
Three Rules of Interpretation
Literal, Golden, Mischief (and Purposive).
Literal Rule
Words of a statute are given their plain ordinary dictionary definition even if the result is not very sensible. This can lead to harsh decisions:
Cases
Whitely Vs Chappell (1868)
London & North Eastern Railway Co v Berriman (1946):
Lord Esher stated in R v City of London Court Judge (1892):
‘If the words of an Act are clear, you must follow them, even though they lead to a manifest absurdity. The court has nothing to do with the question of whether the legislature has committed an absurdity’.
Adler v George case (1964)
Adler was arrested for obstructing forces whilst in a prohibited area. Under The Literal Rule, Adler was not in the VICINITY of the area he was actual in the RAF base, the meaning of the law was extended to include within the base itself.
London & North Eastern Railway Co v Berriman (1946):
Example of Literal Rule in Practice - HARSH!
A railway worker was killed whilst oiling the track. No look out man had been provided. A statute provided compensation payable on death for those ‘relaying or repairing’ the track. Under the literal rule oiling did not come into either of these categories. This result although very harsh could not to be said to be absurd so the golden rule could not be applied. There was no ambiguity in the words therefore the mischief rule could not be applied. Unfortunately the widow was entitled to nothing.
R v Allen case (1872).
In this the defendant was charged with bigamy (s.57 of offences against the person act 1861) which, under statutes states: ‘whosoever being married shall marry any other person during the lifetime of the former husband or wife is guilty of an offence’.
Under The Literal Rule, bigamy would be impossible because civil courts do not recognise second marriages, so The Golden Rule was applied to determine that the word ‘marry’ should be seen as ‘to go through ceremony’ and the conviction was upheld.
Mischief Rule
The mischief rule is the oldest of the rules of interpretation. In the case of ambiguity in the wording of a statute, it becomes more difficult to use either the literal or golden rules. In that situation, it is open to the courts to apply the mischief rule. Formulated in (Heydon) 1584, this rule enables the court to look to the rationale of the legislation to interpret the ambiguity.
The courts assume that the underlying reason why Parliament legislated is more important than the words
1st. What was the common law before the making of the Act.
2nd. What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide.
3rd. What remedy Parliament resolved and appointed to cure the disease.
4th. The true reason of the remedy; and then the function of the judge is to make such construction as shall supress the mischief and advance the remedy.
Purposive
Lord Denning in Magor and St Melons Rural District Council v Newport Corporation(1952):
We do not sit here to pull the language of Parliament to pieces and make nonsense of it…we sit here to find out the intention of Parliament and carry it out, and we do this better by filling in the gaps and making sense of the enactment than by opening it up to destructive analysis’
The legislatures intentions and the puspose of the act.
Not just mischief where it aims to find the gap in the law the time the act was passed.
European Union legislation is drafted in a very different way from English statutes. It follows the civil law tradition, which favours simplicity of drafting and a high degree of abstraction, rather than the exhaustive approach adopted in the UK. This means that a purposive approach is vital when interpreting legislation, so that questions of wide economic or social aims are often considered by the courts.
Litster v. Forth Dry Dock and Engineering Co. Ltd [1989]
employees were dismissed one hour before a business was transferred to a new owner. The employees claimed they were unfairly dismissed. Regulation 5 of the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 (SI 1981 No. 1794) (a statutory instrument which implemented an EU Directive), provided that a transfer shall not terminate the contract of any person employed ‘immediately before the transfer’. The House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) read in the additional words ‘or would have been so employed if he had not been unfairly dismissed before the transfer’ for a reason connected with the transfer. This was necessary to achieve the purpose of the EU Directive, which was to protect the employees on the transfer of a business.
Noscitur a Sociis
‘known by the company it keeps’.
Recognition by Associated Words
A word derives meaning from surrounding words.
The rule is very useful when dealing with ambiguities in individual words,where the ambiguous word is used in close proximity to other similar words.
Pengelly Vs Bell Punch Co 1964
The case concerned section 28 of the factories act 1961 of England which provided that Floors,steps,stairs,passageways and gang ways must be kept free from obstruction.The court held that floors did not include area designed and used for the storage of goods.
EJUSDEM GENERIS
EJUSDEM GENERIS RULE
General words which follow specific words must be read in the light of those specific words,provided that the specific words are examples of some particular class (genus)
Wood v. Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1986]
Vagrancy Act 1824 as being ‘any gun, pistol, hanger, cutlass, bludgeon or other offensive weaponMr Wood was charged under this Act after using a piece of broken glass, which had fallen out of his front door, as a weapon.
EJUSDEM GENERIS vs Noscitur a Sociis
In terms of the distinction between the two above rules it can be said that the eiusdem generis rule is used for a list containing general words, whereas noscitur a sociis is used for specific words and comparing the placing of words in legislation.
Expressio Unius est Exclusio Alterius
Expressio Unius est Exclusio Alterius
(Expressing One Thing Excludes Another)
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius means, ‘to express one thing is to exclude the others’
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department Ex. p. Crew[1982]the rule was used to exclude the father of an illegitimate child from rights under the immigration law of the time, because the definitions section specifically mentioned the mother alone.
R v. Inhabitants of Sedgley (1831) 2 B & Ald 65, the court considered whether the poor rate levied on occupiers of ‘lands, houses and coal mines’ under the Poor Relief Act 1601 could be levied on owners of other types of mine. It has specifically mentioned ‘Coal Mines’ therefore other Mines dont count.
Pepper v. Hart [1993] 1 All ER 42
ecided that the courts could refer to Parliamentary material recorded in Hansard if:
■ the statute is ambiguous or obscure or its literal meaning leads to an absurdity; and
■ the material consists of clear statements by a Minister or other promoter of the Bill.
This case concerned teachers at an independent school whose children could be educated for one-fifth of the school’s normal fee. The question was whether reduced school fees were to be treated as a taxable benefit under s.63 of the Finance Act 1976. There was an ambiguity in the statute and the issue arose as to whether the court could take account of statements made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury during the report stage of the Bill. The House of Lords decided that they could.
The court established the principle that when primary legislation is ambiguous then, in certain circumstances, the court may refer to statements made in the House of Commons or House of Lords in an attempt to interpret the meaning of the legislation. Before this ruling, such an action would have been seen as a breach of parliamentary privilege
Practise Statement (1966)
The Practice Statement of 1966 was a declaration made by the House of Lords that stated that the Lords would depart from precedent to achieve justice. The statement was made by Lord Gardiner LC on July 26, 1966
In particular, it has been used where the previous decision:
-causes injustice,
-impedes the development of the law, or
-itself caused uncertainty.
Even where it concludes that the law should be changed, the Supreme Court considers whether departure from the previous decision is the appropriate remedy rather than legislation.
Binding Precedent in Courts
Supreme Court not bound by its previous decisions (changes in law etc)
Court of Appeal Bound by Supreme Court
Overule
Distinguishing
Overturning
Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd [1944]
Court of Appeal Bound
A ‘full’ court of six members was convened to decide whether the Court of Appeal is bound by its own decisions. It decided that it is normally so bound, but subject to three exceptions:
where its own previous decisions conflict; or
where its previous decision has been implicitly overruled by the House of Lords/Supreme Court; or
where its previous decision was made per incuriam (as explained below).
Since this decision, two further exceptions have been added:
where it was an interim decision by two judges; and
where one of its previous decisions is inconsistent with a subsequent decision of the ECHR.
ECJ Binding? ECHR Binding?
Not bound by previous decisions (Civil Law)
Court of Appeal Criminal Division
All the exceptions which apply to the Civil Division apply to the Criminal Division.
However, in addition, the Court of Appeal has a wider discretion where the liberty of the individual is at stake. In R v. Gould [1968] 2 QB 65 Diplock LJ said:
”. . . if upon due consideration we were to be of the opinion that the law had been either misapplied or misunderstood in an earlier decision . . . we should be entitled to depart from the view as to the law expressed in the earlier decision notwithstanding that the case could not be brought within any of the exceptions laid down in Young v. Bristol Aeroplane Co. Ltd.”
Where a case does not fall within Young v. Bristol Aeroplane, a full court (nowadays of
five members) may be convened to consider the matter.
Are the Court of Appeal Civil and Criminal Divisions bound by each other?
There has been no ruling as to whether the two Divisions are bound by each other, but as their predecessors (the Court of Appeal and the Court of Criminal Appeal) were not bound by each other, it is thought that they are not
