Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

AS Law LA2 > Statutory Interpretation > Flashcards

Statutory Interpretation Flashcards

1
Q

What are the 5 reasons why a word might be unclear?

A
  1. Broad term, (Brock v DPP 1993)
  2. Ambiguity
  3. Drafting error, happen when Bill amended several times
  4. New developments, old Acts doesn’t cover modern situations
  5. Changes use of language, meanings change over time
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Brock v DPP (1993)

A

Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
‘Any dog of the TYPE known as the pit bull terrier’
Ct had consider what ‘type’ meant
Decided type had wider meaning than breed
Cover dogs which = not pedigree bull terriers but had a number of the characteristics of a pit bull terrier.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What are the 4 rules that have been developed to assist a judges when interpreting the meaning of a word in a statute?

A
  1. Literal Rule
  2. Golden Rule
  3. Mischief Rule
  4. Purposive Approach
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What is the Literal Rule?

A

Plain, ordinary + grammatical meaning
No matter how absurd outcome

From Lord Esher, R v Judge of the City of London (1892)
- ‘if the words of act = clear, must follow them even though they may lead to a manifest absurdity’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What did Lord Esher say in R v Judge of the City of London (1892) ?

A

If the words of an act are clear then you must follow them even though they may lead to a manifest absurdity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Whieteley v Chappell (1868)

A

Statute aimed at electoral malpractice
Offence ‘impersonate any person entitled to vote’ at election
Accused = acquitted; he impersonates dead person
There weren’t entitled to vote

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

London North Eastern Railway Co. v Berriman (1946)

A

Railway worker = knocked down, killed by train
‘Routine maintenance + oiling’
Widow attempted claim damages
Relevant statute stated compensation only payable employees killed ‘relaying + repairing tracks’.
Widow lost her claim

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What are the 3 advantages of the Literal Rule?

A
  1. Follows doctrine of P sovereignty
  2. Law = certain, easier know + how = be applied
  3. Force P precise + careful when writing A
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What are the 2 disadvantages if the Literal Rule?

A
  1. Assumes every Act = perfectly drafted (not possible cover every sit)
  2. Lead to absurd results - Berriman (1946)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What is the Golden Rule?

A

Modification of LR
Begins by looking at literal meaning
Ct can avoid interpretation which lead to absurd result

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What are the 2 parts to the Golden Rule?

A
  1. Narrow approach

2. Wider approach (public policy approach)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

When is the narrow approach used?

A

Word = capable 1+ meanings, least absurd meaning = applied

Following Lord Reid’s comments in Jones v DPP (1962).

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What is a case where the narrow approach has been used?

A

Alder v George (1964)
s3 Official Secrets Act 1920 - obstructing member of the armed forces ‘in the vicinity of a prohibited place’
D parachuted into RAF base
Argued NG; natural meaning of ‘in the vicinity of’ meant near to
Obstruction had occurred IN prohibited place itself
Cts: while = true, = reasonable to construe it as including being within the prohibited place

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

When is the wider/ public policy approach used?

A

Words = 1 clear meaning

Following meaning would lead to ‘repugnant/ absurd result’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What is a case where the wider approach has been used?

A

Re Sigworth (1935)
Administration of Justice Act 1925
Sigworth killed mother IOT inherit her property
Literally, fulfilled criteria - only child + mother hadn’t made will.
However, = wrong inherit as a result criminal acts
Rule = established:
If beneficiary (to a will) / next of kin (without a will) = found G murder, cannot legally inherit from V
Still exists today

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What are the 3 advantages of the Golden Rule?

A
  1. Judges choose most sensible meaning of a word.
  2. Avoids absurd results
  3. Avoids injustices, Re Sigworth (1935) - public policy considerations
17
Q

What are the 3 disadvantaged of the Golden Rule?

A
  1. Limited, only used in rare situations based on public policy/ where a word has 1+ meanings
  2. No clear meaning of ‘absurdity’
  3. Not always possible to predict when the courts will use this rule
18
Q

What does professor Michael Zander say about the Golden Rule?

A

= ‘little more than a safety valve to permit the courts to escape from some unpalatable effects of the literal rule. It cannot be regarded as a sound basis for judicial decision-making’.

19
Q

What is the Mischief Rule?

A

It gives the judge more discretion.
With this rule the courts look to see what the old law was before the act was passed I.O.T discover what gap/ ‘mischief’ the act was intended to fill.
The judge interprets the law to make sure that the gap is filled.
Definition comes from Heydon’s case (1584), which laid down 4 rules for consideration.

20
Q

What are the 4 rules that Heydon’s case devised for the Mischief Rule?

A
  1. What was the common law before the making of the Act?
  2. What was the mischief + defect for which the common law did not provide?
  3. What was the remedy the P has resolved + appointed to cure the disease?
  4. The true reason of remedy?
21
Q

Smith v Hughes (1960)

A

The Street Offences Act 1959
Offence ‘common prostitute to solicit customers from street/public place’
6 w
Used mischief rule
Judge decided that the aim of the Act was to enable people to walk along a street without being solicited
Even though w weren’t in public place, the Act interpreted to include this

22
Q

Eastbourne Borough Council v Stirling (2000)

A

A taxi driver
Charged with ‘plying for hire in any street’ without a license
Vehicle = on private land, but likely get customers from street
Applied principle established in Smith v Hughes
Concluded = same point + purpose of Act = prevent unlawful use of taxis

23
Q

What are the 4 advantages of the Mischief Rule?

A
  1. Allows judges more flexibility
  2. Promotes purpose of law
  3. Judges can look back at what gap/ mischief = in law + how = intended to be remedied
  4. Judges = more proactive
24
Q

What are the 6 disadvantages of the Mischief Rule?

A
  1. Risk that judges = filling in gaps with own views on how the law should be shaped
  2. Can lead to uncertainty in law
  3. Difficult for lawyers to advice clients
  4. Not democratic.
  5. Created in a time when leg = minor source of law
  6. Not as wide as purposive approach
25
Q

What is the Purposive Approach?

A

It goes beyond the Mischief Rule
Cts = not just looking to see what gap in old law was, also trying to ID P’s intentions
What P trying to achieve in passing law?
Growing in popularity since joining EU; of different ways EU law = drafted

26
Q

What does Lord Denning says about the Purposive Approach?

A

Preferred approach

‘Sit here to find out intentions of P + carry out, we do this better by filling in gaps + making sense of enactment than by opening it up to destructive analysis’

27
Q

What does Lord Simonds say about the Purposive Approach?

A

He disgarees with Lord Denning and pointed out that ‘if a gap is disclosed then the remedy lied in amending the act’

28
Q

What did Lord Bingham about what rule we should use?

A

Emphasised role of statutory interpretation = assist with meaning unclear words
Where meaning plain + simple, purposive approach shouldn’t be used

29
Q

Jones v Tower Boot Co Ltd (1997)

A

Machine operative for 1 month
Racial harassment (verbal + physical)
Whipped, burnt (screwdriver), called names
Jones took out compensation claim against employers
TB argued, abuse = occurred outside ‘course of employment’ - weren’t liable
Cts disagreed + stressed that purpose Race Relations Act = outlaw discrimination
TB = liable pay compensation to Mr Jones

30
Q

R v Registar-General, ex parte Smith (1990)

A

s51 Adoption Act 1976 - when adopted child turns 18, can obtain copy birth certificate if agree see counsellor
Smith wanted make application
Convicted 2 murders + = detained at Broardmoor; recurring psychotic illness
Psychiatrist thought Smith - hostile towards mother
Problem in law - literally complied with law
Judges CA said: called P approach, despite plain lang used act, P couldn’t have intended to promote serious crime
= also risk to mother
Smith didn’t get information

31
Q

What are the 6 advantages of the Purposive Approach?

A
  1. Use of extrinsic aids (can be beneficial where words = unclear)
  2. Leads to justice
  3. Considers P’s intentions
  4. Broader than mischief rule
  5. Covers more situations - not thought about/invented when original leg = passed
  • R (Quintavalle) v Secretary of State (2003) in relation to the Human Embryology and Fertilisation Act 1990.
32
Q

What are the 5 disadvantages of the Purposive Approach?

A
  1. Too much reliance on extrinsic aids, might distort law
  2. Not always to find P’s intentions
  3. Judges = too powerful, have too much discretion to change law
  4. Not democratic, judges = not elected
  5. Makes law less certain, impossible to predict outcome
33
Q

Is there any difference between the mischief rule and the purposive approach?

A

In essence they are the same
However, there is no longer a need to keep up the pretense of ‘searching for the mischief’ within the terms of Heydon’s case (1584)
PA allows judges to be open about examining the background to the legislation.
Can also consider extrinsic aids without criticism.

34
Q

What 3 effect does the EU law have on the way that the law is interpreted?

A
  1. Purposive approach is preferred by most EU countries when interpreting their leg
  2. P approach = used by ECJ
  3. Affected English Cts in 2 ways:
    - Cts have to use the purposive approach for law enacted as a result of EU membership
    - Exposure to the purposive approach had made judges more accustomed to it
35
Q

What effects does the HRA 1998 have on how the law is interpreted?

A
  • s3 HRA 1998 states that as far as possible legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the European Convention of HR.
  • Only applies if a rights issue is involved in the case.
  • Mendoza v Ghiadan (2002)
36
Q

Mendoza v Ghiadan (2002)

A

Question was could a partner in a same sex relationship take over tenancy of a flat or house wen the tenant to the agreement died?
The Rent Act 1977 only stated spouses/partners in heterosexual relationships could take over tenancy agreements.
It was ruled that this part of the law was not in line with the ECHR and the Rent Act 1977 was to include same sex relationships as well when dealing with transfer of a tenancy.

AS Law LA2 (8 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions