Statutory Interpretation

Statutory Interpretation

1. Mischeif Rule

   • This method was laid down in HEYDON'S CASE and provides that judges should consider four factors when interpreting a statute:
     • 1) What's the common law before the statute?
     • 2) What 'mischief' was the statue trying to remedy?
       • Advantages
         • This rules helps to avoid absurd outcomes and recognises that to only look at the words of a statute is inadequate.
         • The mischief rule attempts to follow the exact will of parliament rather than its words.
         • It promotes flexibility in the interpretation of legalisation. They can interpret acts in lights of changing social, economical and technological circumstances.
     • 3) What was the remedy proposed by parliament?
       • Disadvantages
         • The use of this rule relies on having to find out the defect of the previous common law, which can be very challenging.
         • This rule increases the law making power of unelected judges at the expense of parliament.
         • This rule was created in the 16th century and so is less suited to the quantity and complexity of modern legalisation.
     • 4) What was the true reason for that remedy?
     • SMITH V HUGHES: 'in a street or public place'
     • ROYAL COLLEGE OF NURSING v DHSS: 'register medical practitioner'

2. Literal Rule

   • Judges give words in statutes their ordinary natural dictionary meaning (WHITELY V CHAPPELL)
   • Where words have a technical legal meaning, this will be used (FISHER V BELL)
   • Advantages
     • This also encourages certainty in the law as judges cannot alter meanings to suit themselves.
     • Some judges argue that they are doing parliament a service by bringing their attention to loop holes in the law e.g FISHER V BELL
     • This method respects parliament supremacy and leaves law making to those elected for the job.
   • Disadvantages
     • Where using the rule leads to an absurd outcome it cannot be said as following parliaments intentions.
     • The rule assumes that every act will be perfectly drafted, however words often have different meanings.
     • The rule is favoured by judges who are reluctant to use external aids, yet these can help greatly.

3. Golden Rule

   • The golden rule is a modification of the Literal Rule and is used where the literal rule would lead to an absurd outcome.
     • Advantages
       • It allows the judges to choose the most sensible meanings where there are multiple.
       • The judges can put into practice what parliament really means.
       • This can be used as an 'escape route' for when the literal rule would provide an absurdity.
     • Disadvantages
       • Different judges may have different ideas on what qualifies as an absurd outcome, this can lead to uncertainty.
       • The golden rule can be said to be undemocratic as unelected judges are in effect, making law
       • It is very limited in its use so is only used on rare occasions.
   • Narrow way: where words have more that one meaning, the least absurd is used (ADLER V GEORGE)
   • Broad way: here the rule is used to modify words in a statute to avoid an absurdity (RE SIGSWORTH)

4. Purposive Approach

   • The purposive approach requires the court tow work out the general purpose of parliament in passing an act. It is the spirit rather than the letter of the law which is important.
     • COLTMAN v BIBBY TANKERS: The company was liable as the purpose of the act was to make an employer liable for harm caused by defects in anything they provided.
     • R v REGISTRAR-GENERAL, EX PARTE SMITH: Despite the fact that D was entitled ton information, the court held it would go against the general purpose or the statute if the information may be used to cause harm.
     • Advantages
       • This approach is more likely to respect the wishes of parliament since it seeks to fulfil the general purpose.
       • This provides flexibility in the interpretation of legalisation and enables the law to be kept up to date.
       • This is particularly suited to the interpretation of European laws which are written in very broad terms.
     • Disadvantages
       • The purposive approach enables unelected judges to take over the function of parliament and doesn't respect parliament sovereignty.
       • It is argued that it is not for a judge to say that 'parliament said one thing but meant another.'
       • This approach is less well suited to the more precise and detailed structure of English legaliastion.

5. Rules of Language

   • Rules of language are used to aid interpreting certain formats of words. The rules are:
     • !) Ejusdem generis
       • The general rule: where a list is followed by general words, they are limited to the same kind of items in that list (POWELL v KEMPTON PARK RACECOURSE)
     • 2) Noscitur a sociis
       • The context rule: where a word takes on a meaning from the other words around it (BROMELY LONDON COUNCIL v GREATER LONDON COUNCIL)
     • 3) expressio unius exclusio alterius
       • The specific rule: where a list of words is not followed by general words, the statute only applies to the items in that list (TEMPEST v KELNER)

6. Aids to interpretation

   • Internal (inside the statute)
     • The short and long title: the short title doesn't give much information but the long title is useful for the mischief and purposive approach.
     • The preamble: this is an introduction to the statute which may provide a useful indication to the purpose of the act. Nowadays these tend to be rather brief.
     • The definition sections: these set out lists of what meanings are intended for certain words used in a statute
   • External (outside the statute)
     • An authorised dictionary from the year the statute was passed.
     • Hansard (the official record of what was said by parliament)
     • A law reform report on which the statute is based.