Chapter 4: Statutory interpretation Flashcards
(36 cards)
What is statutory interpretation?
Judiciary has the ability to interpret or construe statutes to ‘give effect’ to Parliament’s intention
What are the 6 problems/issues in interpreting statutes?
- Nature of language - lacks precision when draftsperson refrains from using words that they regard as implied automatically
- Use of broad terms (wide meaning) - ‘vehicle’, ‘family’
- Drafting errors or printing errors
- Unforeseen developments (i.e. current developments, crypto currenncy)
- Intention of Parliament is not very clear
- Meaning of broad terms may change over time
What are the traditional rules of statutory interpretation?
Does any Act provide how interpretation works?
- The ‘legal meaning of a statutory provision is mainly up to the discretion of the judges
- The ‘three rules of interpretation’ are appraoches to SI that are practiced.
- Interpretation Act 1978 - does not provide notes for interpretation but provides standard definitions of common provisions
What are the ‘three rules of interpretation’
- Literal Rule
- Golden Rule
- Mischielf rule
What is the Literal Rule?
What was the case and authority that provided this?
Interpreting according to the literal meaning the words used in the Act. Even if it leads to absurdity. (Seen in the words of Lord Esher MR in R v The Judge of the City of London Court)
What are 3 cases that applied the Literal Rule
1) R v Magnnis
- ‘Supply’ was interpreted literally although Maginnis was not a drug pusher
2) R v R (Marital Rape Exemption)
- The husband of a married couple, could not legally rape his wife
3) Whitley v Chappel
- The defendant was charged under a section for impersonating “a person entitled to vote.” The person who he had been impersonating had died but whose name had still been put onto the voters’ list. The court found the defendant not guilty because in literal meaning a dead man was not “entitled to vote
What are the advantages and disadvantages of the literal rule?
Adv.
- Encourages precision in drafting - The best way to give effect to Parliament’s intention is to stay very close to the words that Parliament actually used.
- Certainty
- Respects Declaratory theory and Parliamentary Supremacy
Dis
- Extented emphasis on the literal meaning of statutory provisions without considering the meaning of the wider context
2.Leads to absurd results, may go against Parliament’s intention
3.Injustice to the parties
4.Ignores the limitation of language
What is the golden rule
A modification of the literal rule. Where judges start by adopting a literal interpretation, but if this leads to an ‘absurd’ result, then they can substitute a reasonable meaning in the light of the statute
There’s no absurdity in the golden rule
What was the case that applied the golden rule?
Re Sigsworth [1935]
- Son murdered the mother, she had not made a will
- He was supposed to be ‘next of kin’ under law
- But court applied the golden rule as literal rule would lead to absurd result
- Was entitled to nothing
What are the adv and dis to the golden rule?
Adv
- Prevents injustice and absurdity
- Reflects Parliament’s true intention
- Remedies the gap in the legislation
- Prevents Parliament from having to pass amending legislation
Dis
- What is absurd is very subjective - London and North Eastern Railway v Berriman (1946)
- It shows some drift of the power from Parliamentary control to judicial discretion
- Certainty
What is the mischielf rule? What was the case and the 4 things that need to be considered/asked?
The oldest approach to statutory interpretation. It involves several steps to reach an interpretation.
Heydon’s Case, where it stated the true interpretation of all statutes need to satisfy 4 elements
- What was the common law before the making of the Act?
- What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not adequately deal?
- What remedy Parliament resolved and appointed to cure the defect?
- The true reason for the remedy
What case applied this the mischielf rule? What are the facts?
Smiths v Hughes [1960]
Facts
- Street Offences Act 1958 made it a criminal offence for prostitutes to ask for potential customers in a street or public place
- Accused was in a house, tapping on window to get attention
Held
- Literal rule would have no offence
- But Judge applied the mischief rule and considered what ‘mischief’ the Act was aimed at
What are the adv and dis of the mischief rule?
Adv
- Helps avoid absurdity and injustice
- Promotes flexibility
- Allows the judge to find the ‘mischief’ that parliament was concerned to remedy by passing legislation (the prior intention of parliament)
- Allows judges to interpret status in the light of changing social, economic, and technological circumstances
Dis
- It allows judges to apply their own opinions and prejudices (an infringement on the separation of powers)
- The increased role of the judges means that their views and prejudices can influence the final decision (biasedness)
What are the 2 kinds of appraoches to SI?
- Purposive appraoch
- The impact of HRA 1998 on Statutory Interpretation (ECHR approach)
What is the purposive appraoch
Taking a wider view (than the mischief rule) and essentially trying to decide what Parliament intended to achieve in passing an Act (Hansard). This approach encourages the judge to look for the ‘spirit of the Act’, and to read words into or out of the Act when this is necessary
What is the case that applied the purposive approach?
Pepper v Hart [1993]
- HOL accepted that the courts are ready to adopt an approach that seeks to give effect to the ‘true purpose’ of legislation
- And as a result will consider extraneous (irrelevant) material that has a bearing on the background to the legislation by referring to Hansard
What are the adv and dis of the purposive approach?
Adv
- Statutes may be applied logically, prevents absurd interpretations
- Reflects the true intention of Parliament
Dis
- The further judges drifts from the language of the Act, the more likely they are to be engaging in a legislative or quasi-legislative function
What is the impact of HRA 1998 on Statutory Interpretation (ECHR approach)
When Government introduced HRA 1998, Acts of Parliament should interpret, as far as possible, to be compatible with the convention.
What are the 2 important sections of the HRA that state that legislation must incorporate the convention
Section 3(1) of the HRA 1998
- (known as the interpretive obligation) which provides that: So far as it is possible to do so, primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights
Section 4(2) of the HRA 1998
- If the court is satisfied that the provision is incompatible with a Convention right, it may make a declaration of that incompatibility
What are 2 cases that applied the (ECHR approach)?
not actually an approach
Ghaidan v Ghodin-Mendoza [2004]
For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers (2025)
Ghaidan v Ghodin-Medoza [2004]
‘ECHR approach’
Facts
- HOL was faced an issue of whether a surviving homosexual partner could be the spouse of a deceased tenant, for the purposes of succeeding to a statutory tenancy under the provisions of the Rent Act 1977
Held
- Possible to ‘read down’ the 1977 Rent Act under the HRA 1998 s.3 so that it was compliant with the rights in the Convention (Art 14 discrimination)
- Interpreted the words ‘as his or her wife or husband’ in the Act as meaning ‘as if they were his or her wife or husband’
- The provision of the Rent Act 1977 should be construed (in accordance with the HRA 1998) so as to give equal succession rights to a homosexual couple living ‘as if’ they were husband and wife
For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers (2025)
‘ECHR approach’
Issue
- Interpretation of the word ‘woman’ in accordance to Equity Act 2010, and the extent that judges can make interpretations without interfering with policy
Facts
- Para 2 - the principle question is the meaning of the word Parliament used in EA 2010 in legislating to protect women and members of the trans community.
- Para 2 - ‘Our task is to see if those words can bear a coherent and predictable meaning within the EA 2010 consistently with the Gender Recognition Act 2004 (“the GRA 2004”).’
- Para 4 - ‘The question for this court is a matter of statutory interpretation. But before discussing the general approach to statutory interpretation, we set out the structure of this judgment and address the matter of terminology.’
Takeaway
- Courts are willing to ‘make law’ and interpret the meaning of woman in EA 2010
What case states the limitations of Section 3 HRA?
‘As far as possible’
Bellinger v Bellinger [2003]
- HOL held that it was not ‘possible’ to use s.3 to interpret the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 Act to be compatible with Convention rights
- To use s.3 in this way would bring about a major change in the law (on the legal recognition of gender reassignment), and would raise issues that were properly a matter for parliament, not the courts
What is the fucntion of Section 4 HRA, and what are the effects of DOI?
Declaring incompatible with the convention
Function
- Where the courts are unable to interpret domestic legislation in a way that is compatible with the ECHR, the senior courts may make a declaration that the legislation in question is not compatible with the rights provided by the ECHR
Effect
- Does not affect the validity of the legislation - Although there is no legal obligation on the Government to take remedial action following a declaration of incompatibility, such a declaration creates pressure for action to be taken (by parliament)
- In most cases where there has been a declaration of incompatibility, the Government has brought forward amending legislation by way of a remedial order under s.10 of the HRA 1998 or through ordinary legislation
