Statutory Interpretation - Methods of
Interpretating Statutes
Literal Rule
The literal rule of statutory interpretation should be the first rule applied by judges. Under the literal
rule, the words are to be followed 'even if they lead to a manifest absurdity'
Fisher v Bell
(1961)
Nota:
Statute made it a criminal offence to 'offer' such flick knives for sale. His conviction was quashed as goods on display in shops are not 'offers' in the technical sense but an invitation to treat.
Whitley v Chappell (1868)
Nota:
Dead person was not in the literal meaning of entitled to vote.
LNER v Berriman (1946)
Nota:
'repairing and relaying' d was in fact maintaining.
Advantages of the literal
rule
respect the separation of powers
Using the plain, ordinary,
grammatical meaning
encourages certainty in law.
Legislation is written by highly skilled
draftsmen who try to ensure that the
meaning is absolurtely clear.
Saves time and
money as no
research is needed
to be done.
Disadvantages of the literal rule
Undermines public confidence in the law
it is not always possible to
draft laws to cover possible
situation that might arise
Words do not often have one plain ordinary grammatical meaning
When the statute does lead to an absurdity, it can
hardly be said to be carrying out the intention of
parliament.
Mischief
rule
What was the common law before the statute and how was parliament trying to remedy the
mischief. The courts look at the wording in the act, but also are willing to look outside the act to
its social and historical context. e.g look at Hansard and law reform reports (Extrinsic aids)
Smith v hughs
Nota:
prostitute 'soliciting in a street or public place'. Attracting customers from a balcony; court held that they had been rightly convicted as the mischief the statute was trying to remedy was being able to walk along the streets without being harassed.
RCN v
DHSS
Nota:
Lawful abortion could be carried out by a 'registered medical practitioner'. Clearly covers doctors, but what about nurses? due to medical advances abortion could be carried out by using drugs instead of surgical abortions. The mischief was to stop illegal abortions where no medical care was available.
Advantages of the mischief rule
attempts to follow the will of parliament rather than the exact words written by parliament.
In Berriman parliament probably meant to cover all people working on railways
helps avoid absurd outcomes. For example in 'WHITELY V CHAPPELL' the mischief was obviously electoral fraud.
Disadvanatges of the literal rule
Relies heavily on extrinsic aids as the defect in common law
needs to be found. This can be very difficult and time
consuming.
Legislation is written by highly skilled draftsmen who try to ensure that the meaning is absolutely
unclear. Any injustices are the fault of parliament and should be dealt with by parliament
Golden Rule
The golden rule of statutory interpretation may be applied
where an application of the literal rule would lead to an
absurdity.
Narrow Rule
The narrow approach is used where the meaning of the word which is
being interpreted is ambiguous i.e. has more than one meaning. The
judge then applies the meaning which best suits the context in which the
word is being interpreted.
Adler v
George
Nota:
‘in the vicinity of’; The court decided that this would lead to an absurd result and interpreted the words so as to include the situation which had arisen where the individual was already on the premises.
Wide rule
modify a word or provision to avoid an absurd result
R v Allen
Nota:
D was charged with bigamy which made it an offence to ‘marry’ whilst your spouse is still alive and not divorced. The ambiguous word was the word ‘marry’. The court decided that in order to make sense of the provision, the word should be interpreted as meaning to go through a second ceremony of marriage. The word can also mean to become legally married but because someone who is already married cannot legally marry someone else, the more general meaning of the word was preferred.
Advantages of the golden rule.
respects the exact words of parliament
except in limited situations.
Allows the judges to choose the
most sensible meaning
Can avoid worst problems of literal rule - it would have been unjust in
Re Sigsworth to benefit from his crime.
Nota:
A son murdered his mother. She had not made a will. Under the statute setting the law on intestacy he was her sole issue and stood to inherit her entire estate. The court applied the Golden rule holding that an application of the literal rule would lead to a repugnant result. He was thus entitled to nothing.
Disadvantages of the golden rule.
michael zander described it as a 'feeble parachute'; easy escape route
but it cannot really do much. this will be difficult fro lawyers to advise
clients of outcome
narrow version is limited , because judges can only
choose through a possible meaning of words.
unelected judges aren't respecitng the
doctorine of the seperation of
popwers. Wide version can be seen as
being un democratic.
Purposive
approach
requires the court to work out the general
purpose of parliament in passing the act an
then interpret the act to fulfil that purpose
Coltman V Bibby tankers
Nota:
Defective equipment supplied by that employer. V died due to ship capsizing because of defective hull. Equipment could mean ship as the general purpose of the act was to make the employer liable for harm caused in anything provided by the employer.
R v Registrar-general, ex parte smith
Nota:
D was a a violent murderer. He'd killed a cell mate because he thought he was his mother.He then tried to find out the identity of his mother which he was entitled to know under the ADOPTION ACT 1976. court held that it could have never been the purpose of parliament to pass a law that could help a possible crime.
Disadvantages of purposive approach
Judges become law makers infringing the Separation of Power
Allowing reference to Hansard may lead to
prolonged examination of irrelevant
material by lawyers which adds to the cost
and length of litigation ( Pepper v Hart)
Advantages of the purposive approach
It allows judges to cope with situations
unforeseen by Parliament (eg Quintavalle)
Helps to avoid absurd and unjust outcomes to cases. for example in R v
Registrar general the purpose of the legislation wasn't created to ever
help a possible crime