Rules of Interpretation

Rules of Interpretation

1. The Literal Rule

   • giving words their plain, ordinary, dictionary meaning - no matter how unfortunate consequences
     • Pinner v Everett
       • 'natural and ordinary meaning of that word or phrase in its context'
   • Whiteley v Chappell
     • 'any person entitled to vote'
   • North Eastern Railway Co. v Berriman
     • unable to claim compensation for husband's death when maintaining railway line. lookout only to be provided for repairing or relaying
     • unfair / unjust decision
     • maintenance of railway, lookout
   • R v Porter
     • had deleted and therefore no access so wasn't literally 'in possession' of child pornography and was not guilty
     • child pornography
   • Advantages
     • respects sovereignty of P.
       • unelected judges should not change what elected P. has written
       • Magor and St Mellons v Newport Corporation
         • problems with wording: 'remedy lies in amending act' (Lord Simonds)
           • Fisher v Bell
     • encourages certainty
     • quick decisions
       • Cheeseman
         • 'passenger' was defined in 1847 dictionary (year of statute interpretation) 
       • Berriman
   • Disadvantages
     • can lead to unfair / absurd results
     • silly decisions to everyday people
     • difficult to apply when words have more than one meaning
       • Allen
     • inflexible, does not allow for common sense
       • Mechanical and divorced from the realities of the use of language
     • can result in cases being decided on technicalities

2. The Golden Rule

   • a modification of the literal rule
     • use literal rule unless produces an absurd result
   • narrow application
     • Lord Reid : Jones v DPP
       • if word is ambiguous, may choose between possible meanings to avoid absurdity
     • applied to R v Allen
       • 'marry'
   • wider application
     • only one meaning, but would lead to absurd / repugnant situation
     • Adler v George
       • 'vicinity of'
   • Advantages
     • allows court to make sensible decisions
       • can choose most sensible meaning
         • Re Sigsworth
           • prevented a murderer inheriting from his victim
     • prevents P. having to pass amending leg.
     • respects authority of P. as wording is altered in only very limited situations
   • Disadvantages
     • only allows judges to change wording of statutes in limited circumstances
     • Michael Zander: 'a feeble parachute'
       • not much use
     • could not be used in cases like Berriman
       • could not be considered absurd or repugnant, even though unfair
     • unpredictable and lacks guidelines
       • Michael Zander: 'an unpredictable safety valve'
       • LC 1969: rule of limited value, no clear means to test meaning of absurdity
     • arguably undemocratic because unelected judges can change what P. has written

3. The Mischief Rule

   • four factors to consider: Heydon's Case 1584
     • common law before Act was passed?
     • mischief that the Act was designed to remedy?
     • remedy that P. was trying to provide?
     • reason for the remedy?
   • J. should look for 'mischief' that A. was designed to remedy and interpret A. so that remedy is achieved
   • Smith v Hughes
     • 'soliciting in the street'
   • Royal College of Nursing v DHSS
     • Abortion Act 1967: 'registered medical practitioner'
   • Advantages
     • gives effect to P.'s intentions
     • allows J. to use common sense, prevents P. needing to pass amending A.
       • 'fill the gaps'
       • Northman v London Borough of Barnet
         • what P. would have done
     • allows J. to consider social / tech changes
     • allows J. to look at external aids
   • Disadvantages
     • finding intention of P. can be difficult
     • reasonable to argue that what P. intended can only be seen in A.
     • undemocratic
       • too much power to unelected J.
       • democratic solution would be amending A.
     • arguably J. to be guided by P. enactments, not intentions
     • out of date, does not reflect modern needs
       • J. no longer draft statutes as they used to
     • might cause uncertainty if J. changes meaning of statute
       • Stock v Frank Jones
         • Lord Simonds: 'ordinary citizens and their advisers hardly know where they stand'

4. The Purposive Approach

   • used in Europe
     • membership of EU and HRA 1998 has increased its use
   • Pepper v Hart
     • 'the courts now adopt a purposive appraoch'
   • requires court to examine object of A and to construe doubtful passages in accordance with that purpose
     • Jones v Tower Boot Co.
       • decided that racial harassment by fellow workers was 'in the course of employment' making employer liable  purpose of legislation could be achieved by giving words a meaning other than natural meaning
     • R v Registrar General ex parte Smith
       • court felt  P. would have wanted mother to be protected Adoption Act 1976 allow adoptees to find identity of birth parents - though not P. intention to allow this is person posed a threat
   • Advantages
     • makes sense to look at whole purpose of A.
     • gives effect to P. intentions
       • Coltman v Bibby Tankers
         • Employers Liability (Defective Equipment) Act 1969
           • intended to protect workers in the workplace - reasonable to include ships as equipment even though not specified
     • allows common sense
     • sensible to use external aids
     • allows J. to consider social / tech changes
   • Disadvantages
     • finding intention of P. can be difficult
     • arguably undemocractic
       • too much power to unelected J.
     • can cause uncertainty