Statutory Interpretation

Statutory Interpretation

1. Statutory Interpretation

   • The Literal Rule
     • Judges should give words in statutes their plain ordinary grammatical meaning, no matter the consequences
       • As stated in R v Judge of the city of London (1892)
         • "If the words of an act are clear, you must follow them even though they may lead to a manifest absurdity" - Lord Esher
     • Examples of cases
       • WHITELY v CHAPPELL (1868)
         • CASE: D was charged with impersonating a dead person who was still on the electoral register. He was charged under a statute that made it an offence to impersonate someone who was "entitled to vote. OUTCOME: The court held that D was not guilty since a dead person is not, in the literal words, "entitled to vote"
       • LNER RAILWAY CO v BERRIMAN (1946)
         • CASE: A railway worker was killed at work when he was oiling the track (maintaining the track) and there was no lookout. The railway company was under a statutory duty to keep a look out on duty for employees who were "repairing or relaying". OUTCOME: His widow didn't get compensation because the court held that maintaining was not covered by "repairing or relaying"
       • FISHER v BELL (1946)
         • CASE: D was a shopkeeper who had displayed a flick knife with a marked price on it in his store window. He was charged under a statute for making an 'offer for sale' from contract law. OUTCOME: It was decided that putting an article in a shop window is not an 'offer for sale' but an 'invitation to treat'. This meant that D wasn't guilty under that specific statute
   • The Golden Rule
     • The Golden rule is a modification of the Literal rule and there are two versions of the rules. The basic purpose is to use the plain grammatical meaning unless it leads to some absurdity or repugnance
       • GREY v PEARSON (1857)
         • "Use the ordinary sense of the word is to be followed unless it would lead to some absurdity, repugnance and inconsistency. In which case the meaning of a word can be modified to avoid said absurdity, but no further.
       • The Narrow Version
         • In the narrow version words are capable of having more than one meaning, the meaning that is least absurd should be used
         • ALLEN (1872)
           • CASE: The defendant was charged with a Bigamy under s.57 offences against the person act 1861 which provides that: 'Whosoever being married shall marry again' commits an offence. The law on marriage stated clearly that and second marriage was a void (was not a legal marriage) so technically no-one could be convicted of bigamy. OUTCOME: The court decided that would be absurd so they applied the golden rule and ruled that marriage means 'to go through a ceremony of marriage'. This led to D being convicted
       • The Wide Version
         • This can be used to avoid a 'repugnant outcome'. It does not require that the words have more than one meaning, just that the court finds the literal meaning unacceptable
         • RE SIGSWORTH (1935)
           • CASE: A son had murdered his mother, knowing that she hadn't made a will. This meant that all of her 'estate' would go to the nearest relation according to the rules of the statute. Which would be him. OUTCOME: It was decided that to give him the estate would be repugnant as the murdered benefited from their crime, so despite the clear words of the act it has held that he would not inherit his mothers' estate.
   • The Mischief Rule
     • The method was laid down in HEYDON'S CASE (1584) that judges should take the following factors into account during interpreting a statute
       • 1. What was the common law before the statute
       • 2. What was the problem, or 'mischief', was the statute trying to remedy.
       • 3. How did parliament try to remedy the mischief
       • Judges should interpret statutes in such a way to stop the mischief and not fear to look outside the statute during their desision
       • Examples of cases
         • ROYAL COLLEGE OF NURSING v DHSS (1981)
           • CASE: There was a statute which provided that lawful abortions could be carried out by only 'registered medical practitioners'. This clearly covered doctors but nurses felt they weren't covered. Advancements in medical science meant that abortions could be done through the use of proscribed drugs by nurses without a doctor being present.  OUTCOME: During appeal the majority of judges decided that the mischief behind the statute was to prevent illegal abortions. Therefore nurses were allowed to carry out abortions through the use of drugs in hospitals. 
         • SMITH v HUGHS (1960)
           • CASE: A prostitute had been attracting customers from a balcony and another from a ground floor window. They were convicted under a statute that prohibited 'soliciting in a street or public place' and since they were in a flat they argued they were not in public. OUTCOME: The court decided that the mischief of the statute was to allow people to walk the streets without being harassed by prostitutes thus the statute was interpreted that it did not matter they were not literally one the street but they could be seen from the street. Making them guilty
   • The Purposive Approach
     • The court must decide and work our what the general purpose of parliament was during the passing of an act, then use that purpose to interpret the full purpose of an act
       • As stated in MAGOR AND ST MELLONS v NEWPORT (1951)
         • Lord Denning stated: " We do not sit here to pull apart the language of parliament..... We sit here to find out the intention of parliament and carry it out by filling in the caps."
       • Many believe that it is an updated version of the mischief rule.
       • Examples of cases
         • COLTMAN v BIBBY TANKERS (1978)
           • CASE: A statute imposed liability on an employer for the death of an employee caused by defective 'equipment' supplied by the employer. The victim died when the ship he was working on capsized because it had a defective hull. The question was whether a ship could be regarded as equipment. Under the relevant act ships did not count as equipment. OUTCOME: The court decided equipment could include the ship because the general purpose of the act was to make the emploter liable for halm caused by defects in anything they provided to the employer
         • R v REGISTRAR-GENERAL, EX PARLE SMITH (1990)
           • CASE: A violent murderer who had mental issues had already killed a cell mate who he believed to be his adoptive mother. He then asked to know the whereabouts of his natural mother which he was entitled to under the ADOPTION ACT 1976.  OUTCOME: The registrar refused and believed that despite Smith was entitled to know, it could never have been parliaments intention to pass a law that could help a possible crime and the court then upheld the decision to refuse the infomation.
         • QUINTAVALLE (2003)
           • CASE: The issue was if embryos created through genetic engineering were protected by the human rights act. This is due to the wording of the statute protecting embryos that were created during reproduction. OUTCOME: The court held that the embryos were protected under the act as they are still fertilized embryos of human beings so they should be protected as it would be absurd for them not to be. 
   • Rules of language
     • Exressio unius exclusio alterius (Specific Rule)
     • Noscitur a sociis (Context Rule)
     • ejusdem generis rule (General Rule)
       • In a list of words if it is followed by general words then the general words are limited to the same kind of animals. e.g dog, cat, rabbit etc.
   • Internal (intrinsic) aids
     • Clues inside the statute itself that may help to make its meaning clearer.
     • Internal aids include
       • 1. The short and long title of the statute 2. The introduction of the statute 3. Definition section which tell you the meaning of certain words in a statute 4. Schedules towards the end of the statute.
   • External (extrinsic) aids
     • Materials outside of a statute that judges can use to help them interprate a statute
     • External aids include
       • 1. An authorised dictionary of the year the statute was published. 2. A law reform report on which the statute is based 3. The interpretation act can be used to find a words meaning if it is covered by the act. 4. A Hansard (official report of what was said in parliament) 
     • Hansard
       • Advantages
         • It is useful if judges use it because it has all the relevant materials needed to interpret the statute. It also allows judges to see what parliament were trying to remedy so it is useful for the mischief rule.
       • Disadvantages
         • > Lawyers researching Hansard adds to the cost and time needed for a case. > The initial question usually isn't even discussed. > The meaning can often be still unclear after using one.