statutory interpretation

statutory interpretation

1. The need for Statutory Interpretation

   • Broad terms - there may be words designed to cover several possibilities which can lead to problems as to how wide this should go
     • The Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 there is a phrase "any dog of the type known as the pit bull terrior" has led to problems. What is meant by "type" ? Does it mean the same as "breed". The court decided that type has wider meaning than "breed". It could cover dogs that were't pit bull terriers but has a pit bull terriers characteristics
   • Ambiguity- this is where a word has two or more meanings, it may not be clear which meaning should be used.
   • A drafting error - The Parliamentary Counsel who drafted the original Bill may have made error which was never noticed by parliament
   • New developments -New technology means old acts may not necessarily cover present day situations
     • Royal College of Nursing vs DHSS where medical science methods had changed since the passing of the abortion act.
   • Changes in the use of language - the meaning of words can change over the years
     • Problem in the case Cheeseman V DPP (1990)

2. Statutory interpretation is

3. The Literal rule

   • Works in their ordinary grammatical meaning
   • Advantages
     • Leaves law making to parliament
     • Makes law more certain
   • Disadvantages
     • Assumes that every Act is perfectly drafted
     • Words have more than one meaning
     • Can lead to absurd results
     • Can lead to unjust decisions
   • Case: LNER V Berriman (1946) Not "relaying or repairing track" but was oiling points. Literal approach - held maintenance was not within the literal meaning of the words "relaying or repairing" so the widow could not claim compensation for the loss of her husband

4. Golden rule

   • Can choose best interpreation of ambigious words OR avoid an absured/repugnant result
   • Case: RE Sigworth (1935) Son was not allowed to inherit money from his mother because he murdered her
   • Advantages
     • Respects the words of Parliament as only used in limited situations
     • Avoids the worst problems of the literal rule
   • Disadvantages
     • Can only been used in limited situations
     • a "feeble parachute" - Zander

5. The Mischeif rule

   • Looks at the gap in the law prior to the Act and interprets words to "supress mischief"
   • Case: Smith V Huges (1960) prostitutes calling from a house to men in the street were "soliciting in a street". This was the mischief that the Act was intended to prevent.
   • Advantages
     • Fills in the gaps in the law
     • Promotes the purpose of the Act
     • Produces "just results"
   • Disadvantages
     • Risk of judicial law making
     • Not as wide as the pruposive approach
     • Limited to looking back to the law prior to the Act
     • Can make the law uncertain

6. The Literal Approach

   • Words taken in their ordinary grammatical meaning
   • Case: LNER V Berriman (1946)
   • Advantages
     • Leaves law making to parliament
     • Makes law more certain
   • Disadvantages
     • Assumes every act is perfectly drafted
     • Words can have more than one meaning
     • Can lead to absurd results and unjust decisions

7. The Purposive Approach

   • Looks for the purpose of parliament and interprets the law to ensure that purpose
   • Case R(Quintavalle) V Sectuary of the State of Health 2003 - Act stated that embryo meant "a live human embryo where fertilisation is complete. Embryos were created by cell nuclear replacement, so there was no fertilisation. Purposive approach - Parliament could not have intended to distinguish between embryos. The Act apllied
   • Advantages
     • Leads to justice in induvidual cases
     • broad approach to covering more situations
     • fills the gaps in the law
     • allows for new technology
   • Disadvantages
     • Leads to judicial law making
     • can make law uncertain
     • Difficult to discover the intention of parliament