Enter text here

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION

1. REASON FOR STATUTORY INTERPRETATION

   • Broad term used
     • A word that has no specific meaning and can be interpreted in a number of ways eg “type”
       • DANGEROUS DOGS ACT
   • Ambiguity
     • It is not clear what the word means
       • SMITH v HUGHES
         • 'Street'
   • Drafting Error
     • When the Act is written – an error is made
   • New developments
     • Technology/area concerned has moved on from when the Act was passed
       • THE ABORTION ACT
   • Changes in use of language
     • Over time the meaning of words have changed either through their use, or because they have been changed by Parliament in other Acts
       • CHEESEMAN
         • 'Passengers'

2. APPROACHES

   • Literal Approach
     • Requires that the judges take the precise meaning of the words given by Parliament.
       • It respects the constitutional role of the judges to apply the law as laid down and also respects the sovereignty of Parliament.
   • Purposive Approach
     • Accepts that Parliament cannot anticipate every eventuality and aims to fulfil the purpose of the Act rather than the exact wording.
       • This approach is encouraged with the introduction of EU law where the law is drafted in general terms without explicit details.

3. RULES

   • Literal Rule
     • Courts will give the words their plain and ordinary meaning, even if the result is not very sensible or leads to an absurd or unjust decision.
       • It was the main rule of interpretation during the 19th century and it is still the starting point for interpreting any legislation.
         • R v JUDGE OF THE CITY OF LONDON COURT
           • Lord Esher: “If the words of an Act are clear then you must follow them even though they lead to a manifest absurdity. The court has nothing to do whether the legislature has committed an absurdity.
       • CASES
         • WHITLEY v CHAPPELL
           • 'Entitled to vote'
             • Absurd decision as the d was still pretending to be someone else in order to vote when he was not entitled to do so himself.
         • BERRIMAN
           • 'Maintenance'/'relaying or repairing'
             • Unjust decision – the dead man had been placed in dangerous situation to carry out work on the railway
         • CHEESEMAN
           • 'Passengers'
             • Absurd decision that appears to defeat Parliament’s intention.
     • Advantages
       • Encourages draftsmen to be precise
         • If they know that the judges will interpret words literally they will ensure that words are chosen carefully and their meaning is clear
           • Results in precise, carefully written laws that should reflect Parliaments intentions
       • Makes the law more certain
         • If the plan and ordinary meanings of words are used then it is clear what the law is
           • Easy to advise clients and understand the law which should also reduce the amount of litigation and disputes
       • Observes Parliamentary Sovereignty
         • Highest law making body - the laws that they pass should be applied exactly and not changed
           • The Separation of Powers is maintained and less judge made law is created out of statute law
     • Disadvantages
       • Alternative approaches make it difficult to predict how doubtful provisions might be re-written by judges
         • There are different approaches used by judges and you do not know which they are going to use and how they will apply it
           • Hard to advise clients and therefore leads to more litigation and creates inconsistency
       • “mechanical and divorced from the realities of the use of language"
         • too rigid in that it does not allow for the realities of the English language whereby words have more than one meaning
           • absurd and unfair decisions which devalues the law and does not show it in a good light
       • It can lead to harsh or absurd decisions
         • In Whiteley in can be said that the decision was absurd because the man was doing exactly what the Act was trying to prevent, and the harshness of the rule in Berriman is self evident
           • cannot be the intention of Parliament to create absurd decisions - defeats the object
   • Golden Rule
     • Modification of the literal rule and starts by first looking at the literal meaning but the court is then allowed to avoid an interpretation which would lead to an absurd result
       • Two Approaches
         • Narrow Approach
           • JONES v DPP
             • If word has more than one meaning you can choose between them the most appropriate – but beyond that you cannot go
           • ADLER v GEORGE
             • 'Vicinity' meant not just the surrounding area but the area itself
               • Sensible decision, upholds intention
           • R v ALLEN
             • 'Marry' carried two meanings: to be married and the ceremony of marriage
               • Judges went with the first meaning
         • Broad Approach
           • SIGSWORTH
             • courts could not allow a murderer to inherit the victims estate and although the Act was clear – they effectively re-wrote the Act to say that there was an exception if the issue had murdered the deceased person.
               • The courts can interpret words in order to avoid a repugnant decision
     • Advantages
       • Allows judges to avoid absurd or harsh decisions
         • Narrow approach allows judges to choose between two meanings to achieve the desirable result and the broad approach allows them to insert words into the Act effectively
       • Allows judges to avoid repugnant decisions
     • Disadvantages
   • Mischief Rule