Statutory interpretation

Question 1

What is statutory interpretation?

Answer 1

It is what judges do when they are trying to understand (interpret) the wording of an act of Parliament (statute).

Question 2

Why is statutory interpretation needed?

Answer 2

1. Acts of parliament may not be clear enough.
2. Words change in meaning over time.
3. Some wording may be ambiguous.
4. Acts of parliament do not cover all potential eventualities.

Question 3

What are the 4 rules of statutory interpretation?

Answer 3

1. Literal rule
2. Golden rule
3. Mischief rule
4. Purposive approach

Question 4

What is the literal rule?

Answer 4

When the judge applies the law in its plain and ordinary meaning even i it leads to an absurd decision which doesn’t make sense (DPP v Cheeseman 1991)

Question 5

What does the law say about the application of the literal rule to certain cases?

Answer 5

Whiteley v Chappell 1868 - It is classed as election fraud if you gain an extra vote by impersonating someone entitled to vote.

R v Harris 1836 - It is an offence to stab, cut or wound another person.

LNER v Berriman 1946 -
Widows of railway workers who are killed while re-laying or repairing track are entitled to compensation.

Question 5

Outline the narrow approach using a case example?

Answer 5

Where a word or phrase is capable of more than one meaning, the court can choose between those meanings. (R v Allen 1873)

Question 5

What is the Golden Rule?

Answer 5

This is when the judge follows the literal rule until the decision would be absurd in which case they make the common sense decision.

Question 5

What are the two ways in which the golden rule can be applied?

Answer 5

The Narrow approach
The Wide approach

Question 5

Outline the wide approach using a case example

Answer 5

Where a word or phrase has one clear meaning but that meaning would lead to an absurd decision that the court feels would not be allowed. The court is then allowed to modify the words of the statute to avoid this problem.
(Re Sigsworth 1935)

Question 6

What is the mischief rule?

Answer 6

Closes “mischief” holes in the law preventing people finding loopholes and allows the laws to develop.

Question 7

What is the purposive approach?

Answer 7

Looks beyond the legislation at the ‘purpose’ of it and what the aim was behind this law

Question 8

Advantages of the literal rule

Answer 8

+ Alternative approaches may be unpredictable in comparison (LNER v Berriman)
+ This rule draws faulty legislation and loopholes to their attention (DPP v Cheeseman)

Question 9

Disadvantages of the literal rule

Answer 9

• Language can change in meaning over time.
• Difficulty understanding meanings may lead to unjust decisions.

Question 10

Advantages of the Golden rule

Answer 10

+ It allows judges to modify the meaning of words
+It stops people getting around the law in silly ways (Re Sigsworth 1935)

Question 11

Disadvantages of the Golden Rule

Answer 11

• The golden rule is very subjective in the way that it is up to the judge to decide what they believe classes as absurd (R v Allen)
• The broad approach allows judges to read words of a statute and interpret them so this can be argued it is giving the judge too much power.

Question 12

Advantages of the mischief rule

Answer 12

+It allows judges to use their common sense and save time (Corkey v Carpenter)
+It allows judges to consider social and technological changes in society (RCON v DHSS - Claim for abortions to be carried out by nurses to stop back-street ones)

Question 13

Disadvantages of the mischief rule

Answer 13

• Personal opinions may alter the outcome (RCON v DHSS)
• Gives judges a law making role - In Corkey the judge made it illegal to solicit in peoples windows which was changing the law as it was originally stated.

Question 14

Advantages of the purposive approach

Answer 14

+Everyone in the EU can use this approach - (Pickstone v Freeman)
+It allows judges to use their common sense - R v General ex Parte Smith.

Question 15

Disadvantages of the purposive approach

Answer 15

• Inconsistent/uncertain - the outcome may be difficult to anticipate which may cause confusion if the judge changes the meaning of a statute.
• Undemocratic - Parliament should not rely on judges to make edits to law.