KEY CASES/ LAW /EXAMPLES (Statutory Interpretation)🖋️ Flashcards
Literal rule- Whiteley v Chappell 1868
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.
London and North Eastern Railway v Berriman 1946
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.
Golden Rule- Adler v George 1964
Under the Official Secrets Act 1920 it was an offence to obstruct a member of the armed forces ‘in the vicinity’ of a prohibited palace. The defendant was actually in the prohibited place, rather than ‘in the vicinity’ of it, at the time of obstruction. The court applied the golden rule. It would be absurd for a person to be liable if they were near to a prohibited place and not if they were actually in it.
R v Sigsworth 1935
A son murdered his mother. She had not made a will. Under the statute setting the law on intestacy he was her sole issue and stood to inherit her entire estate. The court applied the Golden rule holding that an application of the literal rule would lead to a repugnant result. He was thus entitled to nothing.
Mischief Rule-
Smith v Hughes 1960
The defendants were prostitutes who had been charged under the Street Offences Act 1959 which made it an offence to solicit in a public place. The prostitutes were soliciting from private premises in windows or on balconies so could be seen by the public. The court applied the mischief rule holding that the activities of the defendants were within the mischief the Act was aimed at even though under a literal interpretation they would be in a private place.
Mischief rule
Case Eastbourne Borough Council v Stirling 2000
Taxi driver was charged with plying for hire in any street without a license to do so. Although he was on a private taxi rank he was likely to get customers from the street.
Mischief Rule-
Royal College of Nursing v DHSS 1981
The Royal College of Nursing brought an action challenging the legality of the involvement of nurses in carrying out abortions. Held -It was legal for nurses to carry out such abortions. The Act was aimed at doing away with back street abortions where no medical care was available. The actions of the nurses were therefore outside the mischief of the Act of 1861 and within the contemplate defence in the 1967 Act
Purposive Approach R v Registrar- General, ex parte Smith (1990)
Act stated an adopted person will obtain a birth certificate if he is 18 or above and makes the application in a correct manner. Smith applied when he had been convicted of murder and was detained. The court ruled that he could not get the information.
Purposive Approach- R v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority 2003
The House of Lords held that the cloned embryos were covered by the statute taking a purposive approach to statutory interpretation.
