STATUTORY INTERPRETATION Flashcards
1
Q
THE LITERAL RULE
A
- courts give words their plain, ordinary meaning
- starting point for any interpretation, regardless of absurdity
- R v HARRIS
- WHITELEY v CHAPPELL
- FISHER v BELL
2
Q
ADVANTAGES OF THE LITERAL RULE
A
- leaves law making to parliament
- respects parliamentary sovereignty
- makes law more certain
- identifies flaws within acts of parliaments
3
Q
DISADVANTAGES OF THE LITERAL RULE
A
- can lead to an absurd result
- can lead to unjust decisions
- words can have more than one meaning
- assumes that every act is perfectly drafted and defined
4
Q
THE GOLDEN RULE
A
- literal rule will apply unless it leads to absurdity
- wider approach = wording of the act may be modified to avoid absurdity
- narrow approach = court is able to choose between possible meanings
- R v ALLEN
- ADLER v GEORGE
- Re: SIGSWORTH
5
Q
ADVANTAGES OF THE GOLDEN RULE
A
- respects exact words of parliament, except in limited situations
- can prevent absurdity and injustice caused by the literal rule
- helps the court put into practice what parliament meant
6
Q
DISADVANTAGES OF THE GOLDEN RULE
A
- provides no clear meaning of an absurd result
- it has limited scope
- provides an avenue for judicial law making
7
Q
THE MISCHIEF RULE
A
- courts will look at what the common law was before the act was passed in order to discover what gap or mischief the act was intended to cover
- HEYDONS CASE, what the common law was before the making of the act? what was the mischief for which the common law did not provide? what has parliament done to remedy this mischief? the reason for the remedy
- the courts should therefore interpret the act so the gap is covered
- JONES v WROTHAM PARK SETTLED ESTATES = 1. must be possible to determine precisely the mischief that the act was intended to remedy. 2= must be apparent that parliament had failed to deal with the mischief. 3= =must be possible to state the additional words that would have been inserted had the omission been drawn to parliament’s attention
- SMITH v HUGHES = DPP v BULL
8
Q
ADVANTAGES - MISCHIEF RULE
A
- helps avoid absurdity and injustice
- looks at the gap in the previous law and interprets the words to achieve the mischief that was to be remedied
9
Q
DISADVANTAGES - MISCHIEF RULE
A
- Heydon’s case is quite archaic, such a rule may be less appropriate now that the legislative situation is different
- creates the risk of judicial law-making and goes against the doctrine of separation of powers
- may lead to uncertainty in the law
10
Q
PURPOSIVE APPROACH
A
- goes beyond the mischief rule
- courts don’t just look at what gap was in the old law, they also decide on what they believe parliament intended
- R v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR HEALTH
- R v R-G EX PARTE SMITH
- adopted by the European court of justice to interpret EU law
- influence in 2 ways. 1= have had to accept that the PA is the correct one to use when dealing with EU law. 2= using PA for EU law, makes judges more accustomed to it, more likely to apply it to English law
- PICKSTONE v FREEMANS PLC
11
Q
ADVANTAGES - PURPOSIVE
A
- leads to justice in individual cases
- road approach covers more situations
- fills in gaps in the law
- allows for new technology
12
Q
DISADVANTAGES - PURPOSIVE
A
- leads to judicial law making
- can make law uncertain
- difficult to discover the intention of parliament
13
Q
EJUSDEM GENERIS
A
- where there is a list of words followed by general words are limited to the same kind of items as the specific words
- known as the general rule
- must also be at least 2 words in a list before the general word or phrase for this rule to operate
- POWELL v KEMPTON PARK RACECOURSE
14
Q
EXPRESSIO UNIUS EXLUSIO ALTERIUS
A
- where there is a list of words which is not followed by general words then the act applies only to the items in the list
- known as the specific rule
- TEMPEST v KILNER
15
Q
NOSCITUR A SOCIIS
A
- words must be looked at in their context and interpreted accordingly which involves looking at the words in the same section or other sections in the act
- known as the context rule
- INLAND REVENUE v FRERE
