Statuary interpretation

Question 1

What is statutory interpretation

Answer 1

Its a process and exercise of interpreting and understanding the written words of a statute and an act of parliament

Question 2

When do we use SI

Answer 2

Judges only use this when a case comes before the court with a question of law- this happens when the law isn very clear

Question 3

Why do we use SI?

Answer 3

Judges have to apply the law in court, so its their job to first understand what the statute means and implement the will of parliament.

Question 4

Who uses SI?

Answer 4

The job of interpreting the statute falls to the judges (superior judges that sit in court or appeal the supreme court)

Question 5

What does it mean for a statute to be unclear?

Answer 5

Its either:
Broad
Ambiguous
Error when drafting
Advancements in tech
Changes in language

Question 6

What two things do judges use to help their task of interpreting statutes?

Answer 6

Aids of interpretation
Rules of interpretation

Question 7

What is the literal rule?

Answer 7

This involves interpreting a statute by approving the literal definition of an unclear word. This means very strictly avoiding confusion.

Question 8

LNER v Berriman 1946

Answer 8

-The railway worker was oiling points along a railway line and he got killed. -His wife is suing the railway line
-The Fatal Accidents Act was interpreted by the court
-This stated that a look out should be provided by a railway company
-A lookout should be required for men working on or near the railway line for the purposes of relaying or repairing.
-The railway worker was classed as maintaining the tracks
-The LNER were not liable for his death

Question 9

DPP v Cheeseman 1990

Answer 9

-D was masturbating in a public lavatory
-D was charged under section 28 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847
-The word ‘street’ under the Public Health Amendments Act 1907 meant any place of public resort under the control of the local authority
-The toilet counted as a street
-‘Passenger’ was defined as a ‘passer by’
-The police were not classed as passengers as they were stationed in the public lavatory in order to apprehend a persons committing acts
-D wasn’t guilty

Question 10

Advantages of literal rule

Answer 10

Parliamentary supremacy
Respects seperation of powers
Provides certainty
Saves time

Question 11

Disadvantages of the Literal rule

Answer 11

Assumes perfection in drafting
Doesn’t allow judicial creativity
Leads to absurdity
Doesn’t apply to words with multiple meanings

Question 12

Whats the golden rule?

Answer 12

If the literal rule would produce an absurd results the court would then use the golden rule by looking at the loteral meaning of words in an Act

Question 13

Whats the narrow approach?

Answer 13

If a phrase has 2 of more meanings, the judges may choose between those meanings to select the most appropriate meaning to fit the case
(R v Allen)

Question 14

Whats the broad approach?

Answer 14

Where the words have 1 clear meaning but that meaning would lead to an absurd or repugnant result. The court can modify words of the statute to avoid the problem.

Question 15

R v Allen

Answer 15

-D was charged with bigamy under the OAPA 1861.
-The problematic word was ‘married’
-The two meanings were ‘to be legally married’ and ‘to go through with a wedding ceremony’
-Court chose second meaning
-D was found guilty

Question 16

Re Sigsworth

Answer 16

-The deceased person had not made a will
-Administration of Justice Act 1925 said that the son who murdered her would gain the inheritance
-Problematic as there is no ambiguity in the words of the acts
-The court didn’t want a ,murder to benefit from a crime so used the golden rule to prevent the repugnant situation of the son inheriting.

Question 17

Advantages of golden rule

Answer 17

Avoids absurdity
Puts parliaments intentions into practise
Applies to words with multiple meanings
Allows judicial creativity

Question 18

Disadvantages of the golden rule

Answer 18

Creates uncertainty
Goes against Parliaments supremacy
Narrow approach is inflexible
Doesn’t respect seperation of powers

Question 19

Whats the mischief rule?

Answer 19

It requires judges to identify the mischief and interpret the statute to stop the mischief

Question 20

Heydons Case 1584, what were the 4 questions?

Answer 20

What as the common law before the act was made?
What was the mischief and detect for which the common law did not provide?
What was the remedy parliament created to cure the mischief?
What was the reason behind the remedy?

Question 21

Smith v Hughes 1960

Answer 21

-Street Offences Act 1959
-Its illegal for a common prostitute to loiter or solicit in a street or public place for the purposes of prostitition
-The defendants were in a window and on a balcony
-Its problematic as they weren’t on a street
-Parliament was trying to stop prostitutes from harassing passers by
-To stop the mischief they filed them guilty

Question 22

Royal college of nursing v DHSS 1981

Answer 22

-The Abortion Act 1967 said that abortions had to be carried out by a registered medical practitioner
-Nurses didn’t count as practitioners
-Trying to remedy was the unsatisfactory state of the law before 1967 and the number of illegal abortions which put lives of women in risk
-To stop the mischief, they allowed nurses to give treatment so it would reduce the number of unsafe abortions
-They wanted to ensure abortions were carried out with proper skill
-2/5 judges disagreed with this decision as they were rewriting the act

Question 23

Advantages of the mischief rule

Answer 23

Avoids absurdity
Puts P’s intention into practise
Creates flexibility
Judicial creativity

Question 24

Disadvantages

Answer 24

Creates uncertainty
Goes against P supremacy
Limited to fixing one problem at a time
Doesn’t respect seperation of powers

Question 25

Whats the purposive approach?

Answer 25

Goes beyond the mischief rule, considers the purpose of parliament Looks at what P intend to achieve by passing the statute

Question 26

Jones v TBC (tower boot co) 1997

Answer 26

Racial harassment S32 Race Relations Act 1976 'In course of employment' D wanted the court to use the literal rule- tasks which are apart of the job description -Court used purposive approach to look at P's intention to eliminate discrimination (stop racism, educate ppl about races and promote equality) -Employers found liable

Question 27

R v Registrar General ex parte Smith 1990

Answer 27

-D wanted info about his birth certificate -S51 of the Adoption Act 1976 -Act said the registor general had to inform the applicant about consellinf seniors available meaning they 'shall supply' the birth certificate meaning MUST GIVE -Issue as he may be hostile towards his natural mother due to being a 2 time convicted murderer -D didn't get birth certificate as there was a treat to birth mother

Question 28

Advantages of purposive

Answer 28

Avoids absurdity P's intention into place Promotes flexibility Judicial creativity

Question 29

Disadvantages

Answer 29

Creates uncertainty Goes against P supremacy Time consuming No respect for seperation of powers

Question 30

Intrinsic aids

Answer 30

Short title Definiton section Marginal notes

Question 31

Extrinsic aids

Answer 31

Dictionaries Hansard IDW reform reports Interpretation act

Question 32

Oxford v Moss

Answer 32

D stole confidential information but it didn't count under the definition section

Question 33

Whys Hansard useful

Answer 33

To find out what that minister was intending to achieve by introducing the Act

Question 34

What is hansard

Answer 34

Official records of Parliamentary debates, when an Mp introduces a bill, it must be discussed

Question 35

Davis v Johnson 1979

Answer 35

Lord denning said to not use hansard would be to grope around in the dark for the meaning of an act without switching on a light

Question 36

Pepper v Hart

Answer 36

Words of an act are ambiguous and are likely to lead to an absurdity, theres a statement in hansard relating to the statute in question; and that statement would clear up the ambiguity

Question 37

Lord Mackay

Answer 37

Against hansard as it makes cases time consuming and costly

Question 38

Lord Bridge

Answer 38

In favour of it, judges only look at hansard when relevant This is silly as you have to read it to know if its relevant

Question 39

advantage of certainty

Answer 39

-precedent is based on principle of ‘stare decisis’ - the same decision will always be made by lower courts and higher courts are reluctant to overrule their own precedents even when they can! - Jones v SoSSS refused to overrule Re Dowling to maintain certainty. - This benefits lawyers, judges and defendants, as certainty allows them to effectively prepare for cases.

Question 40

advantage of flexible doctrine

Answer 40

-there are several ways of avoiding precedent if a bad decision will be made. Higher courts can change and overrule the law, and any court can distinguish. -R v Shivpuri was able to overrule Anderton v Ryan, as there was a serious error that needed to be corrected quickly. -Therefore precedent being flexible is good because bad decisions can be avoided and allows the law to be updated with society

Question 41

advantage of real life sitch

Answer 41

Precedent is based on case law and cases deal with real life situations, whereas statutes only deal with theoretical situations. -in R v R husband tried to force his wife to have sex without her consent. Society no longer thought this was acceptable, so the court changed law to make marital rape a crime. -This responsiveness is good because law can be made and changed in response to real events. -This allows the law to develop with the times and be updated with society.

Question 42

advantage of judical creativity

Answer 42

-courts can distinguish if an existing law doesn’t apply to the current facts, and original precedent allows judges to create a law where there is no previous law at all. -judges created a brand new area of law (negligence) in the case of Donoghue v Stevenson when contract law would not solve the problem. -This creativity leads to justice, and can save Parliament the time of having to make laws to cover new or minor situations.

Question 43

disadvantage of ridgidness

Answer 43

-precedent is based on principle of ‘stare decisis’ meaning to stand by the decision. Therefore the same decision will always be made by lower courts and higher courts are reluctant to overrule their own precedents even when they can! - in Jones v SoSSS, the court acknowledged that the decision in Re Dowling was wrong, but kept it anyway for the sake of certainty. - This rigidity is a problem because bad and outdated law will not be changed quickly enough and so will be repeated in future (resulting in a lack of justice in many cases).

Question 44

disad of not certain

Answer 44

-there are several ways of avoiding precedent if a bad decision will be made. Higher courts can change and overrule the law, and any court can distinguish -Merritt v Merritt distinguished Balfour v Balfour on marital agreements. In a case with a written contract for money between a couple living together, can we really be certain as to the decision now? -By having multiple decisions on similar cases, it becomes hard to predict the outcome, which has a negative effect on lawyers, judges and defendants trying to handle cases.

Question 45

disad of complexity

Answer 45

-there are nearly ½ a million precedents at the moment and even more get created through distinguishing. -it is often hard to tell the difference between obiter and ratio due to judgements being written in lengthy prose, making it hard for judges to actually apply the law. -Re J, the judge could not figure out what the ratio was and so had no idea what decision he was meant to be making. -This is bad because it defeats the point of precedent; how can you apply the law if you can’t figure out what the law is meant to be?

Question 46

disad of seperation of powers

Answer 46

-This is because precedent allows judges to make and change laws, when it should only be Parliament who have this power. -in R v R, judges chose to make marital rape illegal despite Parliament never making a law against this themselves -This is a problem because judges are not democratically elected, so judges may not reflect Parliament/society’s wishes when making precedent