Statutory Interpretation

Statutory Interpretation

1. Literal

   • Judge give word/phrase natural, ordinary or dictionary/literal meaning even if has absurd result
     • R V Judge of City of London
       • "If the words of an act are clear then you must follow them even though they lead to a manifest absurdity"
         • Whitely v Chappell
           • "any person entitled to vote at an election"
         • North Eastern Railway Co v Berriman
           • "repairing" or "relaying" lookoutman

2. Advantages

   • Parliamentary Supremacy Respected
   • Law making left to elected MPs
   • Can highlight problems of Act
   • Disadvantages
     • Can produce adbsurd results - whiteley v chappel
     • Unjust results
       • Berriman
     • Not always give intention of parliament
     • Might be more than one dictonary meaning
     • Implies draftsmen do job perfectly - impossible

3. Golden Rule

   • Modification of Literal Rule, court is allowed to avoid interpretation which = absurd result
     • Narrow Approach
       • Wider
         • If only one clearmeaning but would = absurd result then
           • = modify words of statute to avoid
         • Re Sigsworth "Issue"
           • Justice Act 1925
       • Allen case

4. Advantages

   • Disadvantages
     • Michael Zander "Feeble Parachute"
       • Escape route buy can't do very much
       • No clear definition of what amounts to absurd
         • Unpredictable
           • Hard for Lawyers to advise clients
         • Too much power to judeges = undemocratic
   • Prevents avoid/absurd results in literal
   • More likely to produce result intended by parliament
   • Allows judge to choose sensible meaning

5. Mischief Rule

   • Heydon's Case
     • Common Law before making the Act
       • The mischief or defect for which the common law did not provide a remedy
         • What does the act attempt to provide so as to cure the defect?
           • What is the true reason for the remedy?
   • Looks at gap in law parliament had felt it neccessary to fill when passing the Act. It then interprets the act to fill the gap and to remedy the mischief parliament had been aiming to remedy
   • Smith v Hughes
   • Royal College of Nursing V DHSS
     • technology advancements
   • ADVANTAGES
     • Avoids absurd/unjust outcomes such as literal
     • Law applied as intended by Parliament
     • Law Commission "rather more satisfactory approach"
       • Should be only rule used
   • DISADVANTAGES
     • Far too much power to judiciary
       • Judges have own views
     • Role of Parliament to update legislation to update act e.g. in Ryal College of Nursing
     • Uncertainty
       • Hard for lawyers to advise clients
       • Limited to look back in old law - can take time to research
     • Rule out of date (16h Century)

6. Purposive Approach

   • Beyond mischief not looking at gap, but judges deciding what they believe parliament meant to achieve
     • R V Registrar-General, ex Parte Smith
       • "shall...supply" to obtain birth certificate
         • Act wasn't intended to promote serious crime
   • Advantages
     • Diadvantages
       • Too much power to unelected Judiciary
       • Uncertain, almost impossible to know exact intentions - hard for lawyers to advise
     • Used in courts in other EU countries
     • Allows law to cover more situations than applying words literally
     • Allows for new technology

7. External Aids

   • Hansard - Pepper V Heart
     • Only if legislation is ambiguous or obscure or leads to an absuridty"
       • Judges only look at statements made by Minister or promoter of bill
   • Dictionaries
     • Vaughan v Vaughan
       • "molest"
         • "cause trouble, vex, annoy, or to put to inconvenience"
   • Previous Acts
     • Wheatly
       • Explosive Substances Act 1883 ,1875
   • Textbooks
     • Re Castioni