Statutory Interpretation Flashcards
(41 cards)
Define the Literal Rule.
(From Pinner v. Everett) Taking the natural and ordinary meaning of a word.
Define the Mischief Rule.
Looking at what the Act was trying to prevent, i.e. what mischief or behaviour in society the Act was trying to prevent.
Define the Purposive Approach.
Looking at the purpose of the Act. The definition which best fits the purpose is used.
Define the Golden Rule, Golden Narrow, and Broad.
Golden: Starts by using the literal rule, adopts the meaning if it leads to absurdity.
Narrow: If a word had two meanings the judge will pick the meaning that is least absurd.
Broad: The word has only one meaning but it leads to absurdity .: the judge invents a new meaning for it.
Which cases are examples of the Literal Rule?
(Pinner v. Everett), Whiteley v. Chappell, Fisher v. Bell, Cheeseman v. DPP
Which cases are examples of the Mischief Rule?
(Heydon’s Case), Corkerey v. Carpenter, Smith v. Hughes, Royal College of Nursing v. DHSS
Which cases are examples of the Purposive Approach?
Jones v. Tower Boot Company, Fitzpatrick v. Stirling Housing Association, Pepper v. Hart
Which case is an example of the Golden Narrow?
Allen
Which cases are examples of the Golden Broad?
Adler, Re: Sigsworth
Describe the case of Whiteley v. Chappell
The D pretended to be, and voted in the name of a dead person. The word “person” was interpreted with the literal rule to naturally mean ‘person entitled to vote’ .: this would not include a dead person. Held: not guilty
Describe the case of Fisher v. Bell
The D was a shopkeeper who had items for sale in his window. Among the display were flick knives. Charged under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 which made it an offence to “offer for sale” flick knives. Held: “OfS” literally means to state the price. Since there were no price tags he was found not guilty.
Describe the case of Cheeseman v. DPP
D exposed himself in the park - charged under the Town and Country Planning Act 1847 with “exposing himself to passengers” - which literally means “people going to and fro” - since the police who caught him were not passing to and fro, he was found not guilty.
Describe Heydon’s Case
The judge said the mischief rule was identifying the gap in common law before the Act, and trying to give the interpretation that would best fill that gap.
Describe the case of Corkerey v. Carpenter
D riding a bike whilst drunk. s.12 of the Licensing Act 1872 made it an offence to be drunk in charge of a “carriage” on the highway. Held: guilty. The mischief of the Act was to prevent the endangerment of one’s self and other road users, so it best fit the mischief for carriage to include a bike.
Describe the case of Smith v. Hughes
Ds were prostitutes charged under the Street Offences Act 1959 which made it an offence to solicit in a “public place”. However the Ds were on a privately owned balcony. Held: the Mischief of the Act was to prevent soliciting .: even though they were not not in “public” they were guilty as this best fit the mischief.
Describe the case of Royal College of Nursing v. DHSS
Nurses from the Royal College questioned the Abortion Act 1967, which stated that only “medically registered practitioners” (meaning Doctor or GP - excluding nurses) could carry out abortions. Since the mischief of the Act was to prevent backstreet abortions it was Held that “MRP” could also mean nurses.
Describe the case of Jones v. Tower Boot Company
Jones was being racially harassed at work in his lunch hour in the canteen. The Race Relations Act 1976 says that employers would be held responsible for bullying during the “course of employment.” Because the purpose of the RRA’76 was to prevent racism at work, it was interpreted that the lunch hour was in the “CoE”. .: guilty - as it best fit the purpose.
Describe the case of Fitzpatrick v. Stirling Housing Association
C and his partner were living together when the partner died, with the house in his name .: the SHA asked the C to leave, as the Rent Act 1977 allowed “spouses” or “family relations” to stay. It was held that the C could stay as the purpose of the RA’77 was to prevent homelessness, and “spouse/family relation” could now include a gay partner.
Describe the case of Pepper v. Hart
A group of private school teachers were not receiving “income” as they were given free education instead of money. This meant they did not pay tax, under the Finance Act 1976. Since the purpose of the Act was to collect taxes for the state, the judge ruled that “cash or the equivalent” would be regarded as “income” as it best fit the purpose of collecting it.
Describe the case of Allen
D was charged with bigamy under s.57 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The judge had to determine the meaning of the word “marriage.” This could mean to be legally married, or the process of the ceremony. If the 1st meaning was used the D would have been not guilty as one could .: not be legally married twice, which was absurd .: the judge ruled “married” to mean to go through the ceremony, which avoided an absurd outcome.
Describe the case of Adler
The D had trespassed on a prohibited area, and obstructed an officer. The judge found that “in the vicinity” of said area would mean the surrounding grounds. Since this definition would lead to an absurd outcome it was held that it would now mean inside the area.: guilty.
Describe the case of Re: Sigsworth
D had killed his mother to gain her inheritance. Here the word “issue” meant a child, but the judge gave a new meaning - a child who had not killed it’s parent(s) .: avoiding the absurd outcome of the killer benefiting from his crime.
Explain “expressio unius est exclusio alterius.”
To express one thing, excludes another. When a statute gives a list, the statute only applies to the listed items. e.g. “this act applies to cats, dogs, and rabbits” it does not apply to fish. e.g. The Inhabitants of Sedgley (1837) - rates were charged on ‘land, titles, and coal mines’ .: held: rates could not be charged on Sledgley as they had tin mines which were excluded from the list.
Explain “ejusdem generis.”
Just of the genre. When a list is followed by general or non-specific words, those general words are given the same meaning as the listed words, e.g. “this act applies to oranges, limes and lemons and any other fruit” grapes would not be counted as all the listed words have the same characteristics - they are citrus fruits. e.g. Powell v. Kempton Park Racecourse (1899) - the D was charged with keeping a ‘house, office, or room or other place for betting.’ He had been operating Taterstall’s ring which is outdoors. Held: not guilty as it was outside - all the listed items had roofs and walls, “OPfB” was given that meaning.
