Statutory Interpretation Flashcards
What is statutory interpretation?
The role of judges when trying to apply an Act of Parliament to a case. this is important as sometimes, an Act of Parliament can be clear but problematic
What are the rules of Statutory Interpretation?
The Literal Rule
The Golden Rule
The Mischief Rule
The Purposive Approach
What is the literal rule?
The literal rule is the first rule that a judge has to consider when applying an act. If this rule is use, the judge will apply the literal, natural and ordinary meaning of a word.
What are the main cases that used the literal rule?
Fisher v Bell Whiteley v Chappell Berriman v London & North Eastern Railway Co. R v Bentham Cheeseman v DPP
Outline the case of Fisher v Bell
The Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act of 1959 made it an offence to “sell or offer for sale” flick knives. The defendant was found not guilty of such an offence as they were displaying flick knives in their shop window and contract law stated that such was in fact an “offer to treat”
Outline the case of Whiteley v Chappell
An act was passed making it an offence to impersonate “ any person entitled to vote”. The defendant was found not guilty when impersonating a dead person as a dead person would not be considered as entitled to vote
Outline the case of Berriman v London and North Eastern Railway Co.
Berriman was refused compensation for her husband’s death who died whilst maintaining the tracks as the act only related to people who died whilst “relaying or repairing” the tracks
Outline the case of R v Bentham
The Firearms Act 1968 made it an offence to “possess a firearm or impersonation of a firearm”. The defendant was using their fingers to form a pretend gun. They were found not guilty of this offence as people do not possess their fingers.
Outline the case of Cheeseman v DPP
The Town and Country Planning Act created an offence of “wilfully and indecently exposing his person in a street to the annoyance of passengers”. The defendant was caught by police officers that had been stationed as a public lavatory but could not be convicted as the police officers were not considered to be passengers
What is the golden rule?
The golden rule is an extension to the literal rule. There are two types of this rule: the narrow golden rule and the wide golden rule. The narrow golden rule allows a judge to choose between definitions if there are more than one. The wide golden allows a judge to refuse to apply the meaning of a word if they see fit to do so. This rule originated in the case of Becke v Smith
What are the main cases that used the golden rule?
The narrow golden rule:
R v Allen
R v Maginnis
The wide golden rule:
Re Sigworth
Adler v GeorgeOutline the case of R v Allen
The Offenses Against the Person Act 1867 defined the crime of bigamy on such a way that it could never be committed. The judge hearing this case found the defendant guilty as they took a narrow interpretation of “to marry”
Outline the case of R v Maginnis
The defendant was charged with possession with intent to supply of drugs. The courts took a narrow interpretation of the word “supply” as the defendant said that they were returning the drugs to their friend who owned them. The defendant was guilty
Outline the case of Re Sigworth
A son killed their mother who had no will. The Administration of Estates Act said that the next of kin would inherit the deceased’s estate if they had no will. The courts took a wide interpretation on “next of kin” and refused the son to inherit as they did not believe that it was right that they did.
Outline the case of Adler v George
The Official Secrets Act made it an offence to obstruct a member of the armed forces within the vicinity of a prohibited place. The courts took a wide interpretation to find the defendant guilty of obstruction despite the fact that they were “inside” rather than in the “vicinity”
What is the mischief rule?
This rule originated in Heydon’s case. When using this law, a judge should consider the common law before the act was passed, the problem with the common law and the remedy parliament were trying to provide
What are the main cases that used the mischief rule?
Smith v Hughes
DPP v Bull
Royal College of Nursing v DHSS
Corkery v Carpenter
Outline the case of Smith v Hughes
The Street Offences Act made it an offence for a prostitute to solicit in a public place. Despite soliciting from a balcony, the defendant in this case was found guilty as the courts felt that parliament passed the act to prevent people from being bothered by prostitutes
Outline the case of DPP v Bull
The Street Offences Act made it an offence for a prostitute to solicit in a public place. The defendant was a male prostitute who was acquitted in this case as the courts felt that this act was only aimed at female prostitutes
Outline the case of Royal College of Nursing v DHSS
The Abortions Act made it an offence for an abortion procedure to be carried out by a person that wasn’t a registered medical practitioner. The defendant in this case was a nurse who had carried out part of an abortion procedure. They were found not guilty as the courts felt that parliament passed the act to stop backstreet abortions.
Outline the case of Corkery v Carpenter
The Licensing Act made it an offence for a person to be under control of a vehicle whilst drunk. The defendant was pushing a bicycle alongside a road whilst drunk, thus were found guilty of such a crime as the courts felt that parliament were trying to stop people from using any transport on the road whilst drunk
What is the purposive approach?
This approach it more European and modern and so it preferred. It allows a judge to look for the purpose of an act. It is very similar to the mischief rule however it isn’t limited to just looking at the mischief that parliament were trying to resolve. A judge can in fact consider what parliament’s intentions were through the passing of an act
What are the main cases that used the purposive approach?
R v Registrar General, ex parte Smith
Fitzpatrick v Stirling Housing Association Ltd
Jones v Tower Boot Co Ltd
Outline the case of R v Registrar General, ex parte Smith
A man that was a convicted murderer with mental health issues found out they were adopted and so applied, the correct way, for a copy of his birth certificate. Under the literal rule, they would have been granted the birth certificate. However, the courts denied the birth certificate as it was felt that the man would track his mother down and kill her and parliament’s intentions were not to facilitate a possible crime.
