Statutory Interpretation

Statutory Interpretation

1. Literal Rule

   • Judges give words in statutes their plain ordinary grammatical meaning
   • Whitely v Chappell
   • LNER Railway CO v Berriman
   • Respects the separation of powers. judges are not seen to make law
   • Encourages certainty in the law
   • Legislation is written by highly skilled draftsmen
   • Saves time and money
   • An absurd conclusion cannot be said to be carring out the intention of Parliament
   • Words often do not have a plain ordinary meaning
   • The use of extrinsic aids could clear up uncertainty
   • It is not possible to draft laws to cover every situation (Whitely v Chappell)

2. Golden Rule

   • Grammatical sense of the word should be followed unless it leads to absurdity/inconsistency/reugnance
     • Wide
       • Avoids a 'repugnant' outcome when the literal meaning is unacceptable
         • RE Sigworth
     • Narrow
       • Where words are capable of having more than one meaning the least absurd one should be used
         • Allen
         • Adler v George
   • Provides an 'escape route' from problems with legislation
   • Wide- judges work out parliament's intention and avoid unacceptable outcomes
   • Narrow- limitied because judges can only choose between possible meanings of words
   • Wide- unelected judges are beginning to make law which is undemocratic
   • Different judges have different views about an 'absurd' outcome which could lead to uncertainty in the law
   • Narrow- judges find a reasonable meaning so they are not breaching the separation of powers

3. Mischief Rule

   • Judges should consider factors when making a judgement: 1. common law before stature 2. problem/mischief 3. how parliament tried to remedy it. Judges interpret the statute to stop the msichief
   • Smith v Hughs
   • Royal College of Nursing v DHSS
   • Avoids absurd and unjust outcomes
   • Follows the will of parliament instead of the exact words
   • Promotes flexibility in the interpretation of legislation
   • Have to find out the common law- involves extrinsic aids which can be expensive and time cosuming
   • Increaes the law-making power of judges
   • Legislation is written by highly skilled draftsmen
   • Dates back to the 16th century- not suited to the complexity of modern legislation

4. Purposive approach

   • Court find out the general purpose of parliament and interptets the act to fulfil it. No mischief has to be found
   • Coltman V Bibby Tankers
   • R v Registrar-General, Ex Parte Smith
   • Quintaville
   • Avoids absurd and unjust outcomes
   • Follows the will of parliament instead of the exact words
   • Particularly suited to European law
   • Promotes flexibility in the interpretation of legislation
   • Goes against the separation of powers
   • Impossible to discover the general purpose of parliament
   • Less suited to precise and detailed structure of English law
   • Legislation is written by highly skilled draftsmen

5. Rules of Language

   • General Rule
   • Context Rule
   • Specific Rule