Statutory Interpretation Flashcards
Reason why statute may be unclear?
Problem with the wording. (Two or more meaning)
Words designed to cover several possibilities (Dangerous Dogs Act 1991)
Four rules of SI are :-
- Literal
- Golden
- Mischief
- Purposive
What is the Literal rule?
Intention of Parliament is considered to be contained in the words of the Act, therefore the literal words must be used.
What could be the result of the Literal Rule?
Absurd and harsh decisions.
What case was the literal rule laid down in?
R v City of London Court Judge
Example of a case with the Literal Rule
R v Kennedy (No2) 2007, was used to distinguish between who administrated a dose of heroin which killed the victim.
What are the criticisms of the Literal Rule?
Decisions like this lead to much criticism where the literal rule leads to absurd or unjust decisions. Although it respects parliamentary sovereignty, giving courts restricted roles, and leaving law making for those qualified.
What is the basic rule of Statutory Interpretation?
It’s not the judges role to make Law, but to carry out the intention of Parliament when interpreting statutes.
What is the Golden Rule?
The literal rule must be followed as far as possible, but if the result is absurd, this statute must be used to avoid absurdity.
What case can be applied to the Golden Rule?
Re Sigsworth (1935)
A son murdered his mother, was entitled to everything but applying of golden rule avoided this.
What does the Mischief rule state for true interpretation, and what is it contained in?
It is contained in Haydens Case (1548).
- What the law was before the passing of the Act
- What the problem the statute was trying to resolve
- What remedy Parliament was trying to provide
What case can be applied to Mischief Rule?
Smith V Hughes 1960
Prostitutes charged under the Street Offences Act 1959, which made it an offence to solicit in public, although they were soliciting from balconies. Using the Mischief rule, holding they were in mischief of the Act.
What is the Purposive Act?
This is where the Judges look for general purpose behind the legislation. The ECofJ has said to prefer this approach in various cases such as Facini Dori (1995)
