Statutory Interpretation Flashcards
1
Q
Needs for statutory interpretation.
A
Changes in the use of language - Cheeseman V DPP (1990)
Ambiguity
Drafting error
New Developments - Royal College of Nursing V DHSS (1981)
A Broad Term - Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
2
Q
What are the three rules of interpretation
A
- The golden rule
- The literal rule
- The mischief rule
3
Q
What is the literal rule?
A
- Courts give a words their plain, ordinary meaning, even if the result is absurd.
- Rule respects parliamentary supremacy + separation of powers.
4
Q
Cases for literal rule
A
DPP V Cheeseman (1990)
R V Harris (1836)
Fisher V Bell (1960)
Whiteley V Chappell (1868)
5
Q
DPP V Cheeseman (1990)
A
- Caught by two police officers master-baiting in toilets.
- but was acquitted because the court, applying the literal rule, held that the officers were not “passengers” under the statute, as they were there specifically to catch him, not as members of the public.
6
Q
LNER Co v Berriman (1946)
A
- railway worker was killed while maintaining tracks, but his widow was denied compensation because the court, using the literal rule, held he was not “repairing or relaying” the track as stated in the statute he was “maintaining”, so no lookout was legally required.
7
Q
Fisher V Bell (1960)
A
- Shopkeeper displayed a flick knife in a shop window with a price tag.
- Court used the literal rule, ruling that displaying an item was not an “offer for sale” but an “invitation to treat,” so the shopkeeper was not guilty of offering the knife for sale illegally.
8
Q
Whiteley V Chappell 1868
A
- D impersonated a deceased person to vote.
- Court applied the literal rule, interpreting “person entitled to vote” as someone still alive.
- D was acquitted, as the literal meaning excluded the deceased.
9
Q
ADVS of literal rule
A
- Respects parliamentary sovereignty
- Certainty + Predictability
- Judicial restraint - separation of powers respected
10
Q
DISADVS of literal rule
A
- Rigidness Leads to unjust or absurd results
- Words can have multiple meanings so not always clear.
- Undermines judicial independence and assumes perfect draftsmanship
11
Q
What is the golden rule?
A
Looking at the literal meaning but the court is allowed to avoid an interpretation which would lead to an absurd result.
12
Q
Cases for the golden rule (narrow)
A
Jones V DPP (1962)
R V Allen (1892)
Adler V George (1964)
13
Q
Jones v DPP 1962
principle of the narrow golden rule
A
- if a statute is ‘capable of more than one meaning then you can choose between this meanings but beyond this you cannot go’.
- if there are two options then choose the option that avoids absurdity.
14
Q
R V Allen (1892)
A
- charged with bigamy after marrying a second woman while still legally married.
- statute made it offence to “marry” while already married.
- However, under contract law, a second marriage would be void, so taken literally, the offence could never be committed.
- golden rule, interpreting “marry” to mean going through a marriage ceremony, not a legally valid marriage.
- avoided an absurd outcome and allowed the conviction to stand.
15
Q
Adler v George 1964
A
Adler v George 1964 - D was charged under the Official Secrets Act for obstructing a member of the armed forces “in the vicinity of a prohibited place.”
golden rule to interpret “in the vicinity” as including being inside a prohibited place, avoiding the absurd result that someone inside would escape liability.
16
Q
The Wider application of the Golden Rule
A
- Where there is only one literal meaning of a word or phrase but applying it would lead to absurdity.
- Then the wider application should be applied which will allow the courts to modify the meaning to avoid absurdity.
17
Q
Cases for golden rule (broad)
A
Re Sigsworth (1935)
18
Q
Re Sigsworth (1935)
A
- son murdered mother, who had died without a will, under the literal wording of the intestacy rules, he would inherit her estate.
- but court applied broad approach of golden rule to give guilt, ruling he could not benefit from his crime.
19
Q
ADVS of Golden Rule
A
- Avoids unjust results + corrects errors in the law
- Respects parliamentary sovereignty to an extent - narrow approach
- Boosts public confidence in the law
20
Q
DISADVS of Golden Rule
A
- Court making a judgement as to what is “an unjust result”
- Arguably just judicial law making - wide approach
- Limited use as only an extension of the literal rule
21
Q
What is the mischief rule?
A
Court looks at what law was before the act in order to discover what gap or mischief the Act was intended to cover.
22
Q
Cases for mischief rule
A
Originates from: Heydon’s case (1584)
Smith V Hughes (1960)
Royal College of Nursing v DHHS
Eastbourne v Stirling
23
Q
Smith V Hughes (1960)
A
- Although the women were soliciting from windows or balconies rather than on the street, the court applied the mischief rule to interpret the Street Offences Act 1959 as aiming to prevent public harassment, holding that soliciting visible to people on the street still counted as an offence.
24
Q
Royal College of Nursing v DHHS
A
- case concerned whether nurses could lawfully perform parts of abortions under the Abortion Act 1967, which stated that treatment must be carried out by a “registered medical practitioner” (i.e., a doctor).
Due to medical advancements, much of the procedure was now safely done by nurses, and the court applied the mischief rule, deciding that the mischief the Act aimed to prevent was unsafe backstreet abortions. Since nurse involvement under medical supervision did not undermine this purpose, it was held to be lawful.
25
Eastbourne v Stirling
- taxi driver charged with illegally plying for hire without a licence while parked on a private taxi rank, not on the street itself.
- court applied the mischief rule, deciding the law aimed to protect the public from unlicensed taxis, and since the driver was visible and available to the public on the street, the mischief still applied — so the conviction was upheld.
26
ADVS of mischief rule
1. Avoids unjust/ absurd outcomes
2. Promotes the purpose of the law and Parliaments intention
3. Reforms and improves the law
27
DISADVS of Mischief Rule
1. Can be challenging to discover the "mischief"
2. Arguably just judicial law making
3. Rule is very old and can produce uncertainty in the law
28
What is the purposive approach?
Not just looking for the gap in old law, the Judges go beyond to decide what they believe Parliament meant to achieve.
29
Purposive approach cases
R v Registar General ex p Smith
Ghaidan v Mendoza
Quintavelle
30
R v Registar General ex p Smith
- man, convicted of murder, wanted to obtain a copy of his birth certificate to trace his birth mother, but the Registrar General refused, citing a law prohibiting disclosure if it might harm the person requesting it.
purposive approach, focusing on the purpose of the law, which was to protect individuals from harm, and decided that the intention was to prevent harm, so releasing the birth certificate would not serve that purpose in this case, and the decision to refuse was upheld.
31
Ghaidan v Mendoza
- case involved a gay man who was denied tenancy rights under the Rent Act 1977, as it only allowed “husband and wife” to inherit tenancy rights.
purposive approach, interpreting the law in light of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the right to privacy and family life under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The court ruled that the law should be interpreted to include same-sex partners, allowing the claimant to inherit the tenancy, as this was the intended purpose of the Rent Act to protect family relationships.
32
Quintavalle
- case concerned whether human embryos created by cloning fell under the definition of “embryo” in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, which was originally intended to regulate IVF procedures.
purposive approach, interpreting the word “embryo” in the Act in light of the advances in science and technology, particularly cloning. It decided that the Act should be interpreted broadly to include cloned embryos, as this reflected the legislative intent to regulate all forms of human embryo creation, not just traditional IVF
33
ADVS of the purposive approach
1. Avoids absurdities
2. Useful for new technology
3. Gives greater judicial discretion
34
DISADVS of the purposive approach
1. Difficult to discover what the true intentions of Parliament are
2. Can lead to uncertainty in the law
3. Arguably just judicial law making
35
2 types of aid
Intrinsic - within the aid
Extrinsic - outside the act
36
Intrinsic aids
- Found within act itself
Short Title
Long Title
Explanatory notes (new statutes
Preamble (old statutes)
Interpretation section - Theft Act defines property/ buildings
Headings
37
Extrinsic aids
- Interpretations found outside of an Act.
Previous Acts
Earlier Case
Dictionaries of the time
Hansard "everything said in parliament"
Law Commission Reports
International/ European Legislation - R v Bentham : using gun crime laws from America
38
Pepper v Hart (1992) - extrinsic aids
- The court allowed Hansard to be consulted to clarify the meaning of ambiguous wording in a tax statute.
39
Cheeseman v DPP - extrinsic aids
- Dictionaries of the times : definition of "passengers"
40
Advantages of Statutory interpretation
- Ensures Flexibility
- Promotes fairness
- Fills in gaps
- Promotes judicial consistency
41
Ensures Flexibility (advs)
- Judges can adapt the law to changing societal norms and situations. This flexibility helps keep the law relevant.
- R v. R (1991) , House of Lords used statutory interpretation to rule that a husband could be found guilty of raping his wife.
42
Promotes fairness (advs)
- If a statute's language is unclear or ambiguous, judges can interpret it in a way that leads to fairer outcomes.
- Smith v. Hughes (1960), the court interpreted the law on soliciting prostitution to cover women who were soliciting
43
Fills in gaps (advs)
- Statutes can be incomplete or vague, and interpretation by judges can fill in these gaps.
- Jones v. Tower Boot Co Ltd (1997), the court interpreted employment law to extend protection against racial harassment to employees subjected to it outside the workplace, thereby broadening the law’s protection.
44
Promotes judicial consistency (advs)
- Statutory interpretation allows courts to establish precedents, which helps maintain consistency.
- Misrepresentation Act 1967 has been interpreted in various cases to guide the courts in determining the level of compensation for those who have suffered from misrepresentation.
45
Disadvantages of Statutory interpretation
- Undemocratic
- Lack of clarity
- Time-consuming and expensive
- Rigid adherence to wording
46
Undemocratic (disadvantages)
- It allows judges to create or modify laws, which is traditionally the role of Parliament.
- R v. Brown (1993), the court interpreted the law in a way that criminalised consensual sadomasochistic acts between adults.
47
Lack of clarity/unpredictability (disadvantages)
- Interpretation of statutes can vary depending on the method a judge chooses to apply (e.g., literal, golden, or purposive rules)
- Fisher v. Bell (1961), the literal rule was applied, and the court ruled that displaying a flick knife in a shop window was not "offering it for sale" under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959.
48
Time-consuming and expensive (disadvantages)
- Interpreting statutes can require lengthy arguments in court, involving detailed analysis of previous cases, legislation, and external materials
49
Rigid adherence to wording (disadvantages)
- Methods like the literal rule can result in absurd or unfair outcomes when judges strictly follow the words of a statute without considering its purpose.
- London & North Eastern Railway Co v. Berriman (1946), a widow was denied compensation because her husband was maintaining, not "repairing or relaying," tracks
