Statutory Interpretation8️⃣

Question 1

Literal Rule - Statutory Interpretation

Answer 1

1. Definition: The literal rule requires judges to apply the plain, ordinary, or literal meaning of words in a statute.
   
   2. How It Works: Judges use the dictionary (from when the Act was passed) or interpretation sections in the Act.
   3. Lord Esher’s Quote: “If the words of an act are clear, then you must follow them even though they lead to a manifest absurdity.”
   4. Parliamentary Sovereignty: This rule respects Parliamentary sovereignty by following the exact wording Parliament has written.
   5. Absurd Results: Literal interpretation can lead to absurd or unjust outcomes, as shown by case law.
   6. Case 1 - Whiteley v Chappell: The literal meaning of “entitled to vote” excluded dead people, so the defendant was not guilty of voting as a dead person.
   7. Case 2 - LNER v Berriman: The literal meaning of “relaying or repairing” excluded track maintenance, so the claimant couldn’t get compensation.
   8. Criticism: While it upholds clarity, it can result in decisions that do not reflect the intention behind the law.

Question 2

Golden Rule - Statutory Interpretation

Answer 2

1. Definition: The golden rule modifies the literal rule by allowing judges to change or choose the meaning of a word to avoid absurd or repugnant results.
   
   2. How It Works: Judges start with the literal meaning, but if this causes an absurd outcome, they can modify the interpretation.
   3. Parliament’s Purpose: The rule considers not only the dictionary meaning but also Parliament’s intention when passing the Act.
   4. Lord Reid’s Quote: “If [words] are capable of more than one meaning, then you can choose between those meanings, but beyond this you cannot go.”
   5. Narrow Approach: Used when there are multiple meanings; the judge chooses the most appropriate meaning.
   6. Case 1 - R v Allen: The judge applied the narrow approach to interpret ‘to marry’ and chose the meaning of ‘to go through the ceremony’ to avoid an absurd result.
   7. Broad Approach: Used when there is only one meaning, but the literal interpretation would lead to an unfair or repugnant result.
   8. Case 2 - Re Sigsworth: The court modified the meaning of ‘issue’ to prevent a son who murdered his mother from inheriting her estate.

Question 3

Mischief Rule - Statutory Interpretation

Answer 3

1. Definition: The mischief rule requires judges to interpret the law in a way that addresses the issue (mischief) the Act was designed to remedy.
   
   2. How It Works: Judges look at the common law before the Act, identify the mischief or defect, understand the remedy Parliament intended, and apply the law to resolve the issue.
   3. Heydon’s Case: The rule is based on the principles in Heydon’s case, which outlines the steps judges take in applying the rule.
   4. Extrinsic Aids: To understand the mischief, judges often refer to case law or reports, such as those from the Law Commission.
   5. Case 1 - Smith v Hughes: The court interpreted ‘street or public place’ to include women soliciting from private property, as the mischief to be remedied was public molestation.
   6. Key Phrase: The mischief rule applies to address what the Act sought to fix, even if the situation doesn’t literally match the wording.
   7. Case 2 - Royal College of Nursing v DHSS: The court applied the mischief rule to allow nurses to perform abortions, as Parliament’s intent was to make abortions safer, not to limit them to doctors.
   8. Outcome: The mischief rule allows the law to adapt and apply to situations Parliament intended to address, even if a literal interpretation would not fit.

Question 4

Purposive Approach - Statutory Interpretation

Answer 4

1. Definition: The purposive approach requires judges to interpret the law to achieve the purpose Parliament intended when passing the Act.
   
   2. How It Works: Judges determine the Act’s purpose and apply the law to align with it. This can be done by looking at preambles or purpose sections in the Act.
   3. Modern Approach: This is a modern method often used in European countries and is mandatory for interpreting EU Law.
   4. Human Rights Act 1998: The Act requires interpretation of law with the purpose of respecting and promoting human rights, where possible.
   5. Case 1 - Ex Parte Smith: The court interpreted ‘shall…supply’ in The Adoption Act 1967, refusing a convicted murderer’s access to his birth certificate, as Parliament’s purpose could not have been to promote violence.
   6. Key Phrase: The purposive approach looks beyond the literal meaning of words to achieve the intent behind the law.
   7. Case 2 - Quintavalle: The court interpreted the term ‘embryo’ in The Embryology Act 1990 to include embryos created without fertilisation, as Parliament could not have anticipated technological advancements.
   8. Outcome: The purposive approach allows for a broader, flexible interpretation of the law to fulfill the legislative purpose, even as circumstances evolve.

Question 5

Intrinsic Aids - Statutory Interpretation

Answer 5

1. Definition: Intrinsic aids are materials within the statute itself that help clarify its meaning.
   
   2. Short Title & Long Title: Judges can refer to both the short and long titles of an Act. The long title often provides guidance on the Act’s purpose.
      • Example: The long title of the Abortion Act 1967 explains its purpose to amend and clarify the law on the termination of pregnancy.
   3. Interpretation Sections: Some Acts include sections that define specific words or terms to clarify their meaning.
      • Example: The Theft Act 1968 defines ‘property’ under section 4 to mean money, real and personal property, and intangible property.
   4. Schedules: Schedules are additional sections of an Act that can be referred to for more clarity.
      • Example: The Hunting Act 2004 refers to Schedule 1 to determine hunting exemptions.
   5. Other Sections of the Act: Other parts of the statute may also help interpret unclear sections.
      • Example: In Harrow LBC v Shah & Shah (1999), another section outlining due diligence was considered in determining the defendant’s defence.
   6. Usage of Schedules: Schedules can help define terms or provide lists that aid in interpreting the main body of the Act.
   7. Case Law Impact: Previous court decisions can be used as intrinsic aids to interpretation if relevant sections or terms have been previously defined or clarified.
   8. Purposeful Omission: If a term or defence is not included in one part of the Act, it may be due to a purposeful omission, as seen in the Harrow case.

Question 6

Extrinsic Aids - Statutory Interpretation

Answer 6

1. Definition: Extrinsic aids are materials outside the statute that help judges understand or clarify the law.
   
   2. Dictionaries: Judges can use dictionaries from the time the Act was passed to find literal meanings.
      • Example: In Vaughan v Vaughan, the word “molest” was interpreted using a dictionary to mean “vex, trouble or annoy”.
   3. Hansard: A record of Parliamentary debates. It can be used when the law is ambiguous or absurd.
      • Example: In Pepper v Hart (1993), Hansard was allowed because the Minister’s words clarified the meaning.
   4. Limitations on Hansard: It can only be used if there is ambiguity or absurdity, and a clear ministerial statement resolves it.
   5. Law Commission Reports: These help identify problems in the law and guide interpretation by showing the mischief.
      • Example: In DPP v Bull, the Wolfenden Report showed the Act only targeted female prostitutes, so a male D wasn’t liable.
   6. Use of Reports: In 2014–15, over 400 cases referred to Law Commission reports to aid interpretation.
   7. Previous Acts: Courts can refer to earlier legislation when a new Act is amending or replacing it.
      • Example: In Wheatley (1979), judges looked at an older Act to interpret the Explosive Substances Act 1883.
   8. Purpose of Extrinsic Aids: These aids help judges understand the law’s background, purpose, and context beyond just the wording.

Question 7

Impact of European Union Law – Statutory Interpretation

Answer 7

1. Intro: The EU’s preference for the purposive approach influenced how UK judges interpret statutes.
   
   2. Impact 1: UK judges began to accept the purposive approach as the correct method for interpreting law.
   3. Impact 2: Regular use of purposive interpretation for EU law made judges more likely to apply it to purely UK law.
   4. Even after Brexit: Judges may continue using the purposive approach because it is now familiar and accepted.
   5. Impact 3: Using the purposive approach confirmed EU law’s supremacy over UK law while the UK was in the EU.
   6. Marleasing (1992): The UK courts interpreted law in line with EU directives, even if it conflicted with UK statutes.
   7. S2(4) European Communities Act 1972: Required UK law to align with EU law, supporting purposive interpretation.
   8. Impact 4: After Brexit, the European Communities Act 1972 was repealed, so EU law is no longer supreme in the UK.

Question 8

Impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 – Statutory Interpretation

Answer 8

1. Section 3 HRA 1998: Courts must interpret laws, as far as possible, in a way compatible with ECHR rights.
   
   2. This rule only applies when a Convention right is engaged – not for general interpretation.
   3. Key case: Mendoza v Ghaidan (2002) – a same-sex partner claimed protection as a statutory tenant.
   4. Issue: The Rent Act 1977 referred to ‘spouse’, which did not clearly cover same-sex couples.
   5. Article 8 and 14: The court found a breach of the right to home (Art 8) and non-discrimination (Art 14).
   6. Held: Same-sex partners in a stable relationship should get the same protection as heterosexual couples.
   7. Section 3 power: Lord Nicholls said courts can interpret or add words to make law ECHR-compliant.
   8. Limit: This interpretive power is not unlimited – it cannot change the fundamental purpose of the law