Statutory Interpretation

Statutory Interpretation

1. many statutes are passed in parliament each year, they are meant to all be clear and explicit but this is not always the case. in order to help parliament includes sections defining certain words, they are called interpretation sections. For example the Theft act 1967 section 1 defines theft then sections 2-6 define the key words.

2. The need for statutory interpretation -

   • Many cases come to court over the dispute over the meanings of an act of parliament. In these cases its the courts job to find the exact meaning. There are many reasons as to why they are unclear -
     • 1. A Broad Term - some words cover several possibilities, in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 it phrases 'any dog of the type known as the pit bull terrier' - this lead to issues due to the word 'type' people didn't know if it meant breed? - in Brock V DPP:they was a dispute in the Queens bench divisional court. as 'type had a wider meaning than 'breed'. it could cover dogs whch werent pedigree pit bull but which had the same characteristics.
       • 4. New Developments - with new developments the old act does not mean the same as it would in the modern world. - found in the College of Nurses case (medical practitioner)
         • 5. Changes in the use of language - meanings of words can change over years. this was a problem in the cheeseman case: 'Passenger' police were not passengers (passers-through) was they were waiting there
     • 2. Ambiguity - the word has more than one or two meanings. and it is not clear which definition should be used.
     • 3. A Drafting Error - these are normally found when parliament has amended a bill a few times and the error has been missed.

3. Literal Approach Versus Purposive Approach -

   • The Cheeseman case illustrates several problems with statutory interpretation - Its an example of courts taking words literally - however it was argues the defendant was 'wilfully exposing himself in a 'street' but what was important was whether the police officers were 'passengers', as they were only there after several complaints. Some argue that this type of incident in the reason for the act. this is a purposive approach which is when the literal meaning is not taken but a broader/wider one is
     • The conflict of the literal approach and the purposive approach is a major issue for statutory interpretation.
       • Should judges examine each word and take them literally or accept that the act can not cover every single possible situation. The purposive approach is taken in European Law. The treaty of Rome sets out Principles without specific details. As they are set out in several languages it would be difficult/impossible to get the same meaning for every country.
         • In English law, they have developed 3 different rules of interpretation - The Literal Rule, The Golden Rule and the Mischief Rule -Each judge tends to have their preference to which rule they want to use, but once a definition has been made it may become precedent

4. The Literal Rule -

   • This rule gives words their plain, ordinary or literal meaning even if the result is not very sensible. -
     • Cases - the cases tend to be old and the outcomes absurd.
       • Whiteley V Chappell (1868) - Defendant was charged with impersonating 'any person entitles to vote' the defendant pretended to be a person who had died. The court found the D not Guilty as the literal meaning meant the person had to still be alive- a dead person isnt entitled to vote!
       • London and Northern Eastern Railway Co. V Berriman (1946) - A railway worker was killed while doing maintenance work, his widow tried to claim compensation, as there had not been a look out man which is needed under the regualtion under the fatal accidents act which a man was needed for 'repairing or relaying'. The court took the literal meaning for the words 'relaying and repairing' and as Berriman was only maintaining the tracks meaning Mrs Berrimans claim failed.
     • Advantages - It follows the exact words parliament has placed into the act. judges ae meant to follow the act of a parliament are the law making bodies. It should make the law more certain, this makes it easier for people to understand the law.
       • Disadvantages - the rule assumes every act is perfectly drafted, but the act is unable to cover every situation which means it's not always understandable. (Whiteley case). Words may have more than one meaning so the act becomes unclear. even in dictorneries the words have multipule definitions leading to unjust decisions such as in Berriman.
   • Professor Micheal Zander denounced the Literal rule as being mechanical and divorced from the realities of the use of language.

5. The Golden Rule -

   • This rule is a modification of the literal rule, it looks at the literal meaning but can void the meaning if it means the case having an absurd outcome.
     • 2 views of the golden rule - (narrow/wide) - Narrow: only choose between the possible definitions available, if there is only one meaning it must be taken. Wider: when words only have one meaning, but the meaning would lead to a repugnant situation, in a situation like this the court will invoke the golden rule to modify the words of statute in order to avoid future problems.
   • Cases using the Golden Rule -
     • Adler V George (1964) -The official secrets act 1920 made it an offence to obstruct her majesty's forces 'in the vicinity' of a prohibited place. the D's argued they were not guilty as the literal meaning is outside but close. the divisional court found them guilty as it would be absurd to find anyone guilty on the outside but not the inside, the words now reaad 'in or in the vinicty of' theprohibted place.
       • Narrow Approach
       • Re Sigworth (1935) - A son had murdered his mother, she did not make a will, so everything would naturally go to her son. as the 'issue' he would be getting everything. the courts found this absurd so they held the literal rule should not apply, so the court wrote into that act that the 'issue' wasnt entitled to inherit f they had killed the certain person.
         • Wide Approach
   • Advantages/Disadvantage of the Golden Rule -
     • Advantages - it respects all words in the act except in limited situations, the golden rule is like an 'escape route', it allows judges to make the most sensiable/appropriate decision, it avoids bad decisions, which makes bad law.
       • Disadvantages - It is very limited to its uses. it not possible to predict when courts will use this rule. Micheal Zander called it a 'feeble Parachute' - escape route.

6. The Mischief Rule -

   • This rule gives the judge more freedom - the definition comes from the case Heydon (1584) there is 4 points which the courts should consider- 1. What was the common law before the act came into action? 2. what was the mischief and defect which the common law did not provide? 3. how did parliament resolve/appoint to cure the disease of the commonwealth? 4. the reason for the issue, the judge is always to make sure construction as shall suppress the mischief and advance the remedy. under this rule the court looks at what gap/'mischief' the act was there to fill, the court should then interpret the act to fill the gap. this is very different to both the golden and literal rule.
     • Cases using the mischief rule.
       • Smith V Hughes (1960) - The case was on whether it is an offecce for prostitutes to be convicted if they are in windows as the act states it is an offence to 'loiter or solicit in a street or public place'. in this case one was in a window and one on a balcony, they were both attracting men. they pleaded not guilty, the court took the mischief rule as the point in the act is to stop prostitution and the literal rule would make them not guilty as they were not on the street and in a public place.
       • Eastbourne Borough Council V Stirling (2000) - Taxi Driver - 'plying for hire in any street' - without a licence, - his car was parked in front of a taxi rank - he was found guilty as he was likely to get customers from the streets - courts said he would be 'plying for hire' if his vehicle was positioned that he looked to offer his services.
       • Nursing V DHSS (1981) - Abortion Act 1967 - the pregnancy had to be 'terminated by a registered medical practitioner' - when the act passed this would only mean doctors - it went to the HoL and a majority said it was lawful for nurses to carry out the termination. - the aim for the act was to stop illegal abortions, and have it carried out by a professional and in a safe environment like a hospital.
   • Advantages/Disadvantages of the Mischief rule -
     • Advantages - It allows judges to look at the gaps in the law in which the act was supposed to cover. this makes sure through precedent that the law is covered. this is more likely to produce a just result. the law commission prefer the mischief rule as long as it is only used in statutory interpretation.
     • Disadvantages - there is a risk of judicial law making, and trying to fill the gaps in the act with there opinion,. the Nursing V DHSS case shows how not all judges agree on the use of the rule. it may lead to uncertainty in the law. makes it difficult for lawyers to advise clients. its not as wide as the purposive approach as it is limited to looking back at old law, it cannot be used in general.

7. The Purposive Approach -

   • This goes beyond the mischief rule, it's not just looking to see what the gap in the old law is. in the purposive approach, the judges are deciding what they think parliament was meant to achieve, and what the act wishes at achieve. Opponents of the purposive approach say it is impossible to know what parliaments intentions were. they should follow the wording as this is what they menat.
   • Cases using the Purposive Approach -
     • R V Registrar-General, ex parte Smith (1990) - s51 of the Adoption Act 1976 - Smith applied for his birth certificate, he was prepared to see a councellor, the act had to supply them to him as the act said 'shall...supply' - Mr Smith as a murder X2 and had a psychotic illness, and a psychiatrist believed he would be hostile towards hie birth mother. the court ruled that they did not have to supply the birth information - parliament never intended to promote serious crime.
     • R V Secretary of State (2003) - HoL had to decide if cell nuclear replacement came within the definition of 'embryo' - 'Embryo' means a live human where fertilisation is complete. CNR did not fertilise the cells so it did not come within the definition.
   • Advantages/Disadvantages -
     • Advantages - Leads to justice in individual cases. it has a wider approach which allows it to cover more situations, this approach also allows for new technology like in R V Secretary of State - CNR + Embryos = unknown when law was made. if the literal rule was used it would've been necessary to change the act.
       • Disadvantages - Makes the law less certain, it allows un-elected judges to 'make' law. the purposive tries to find what parliament would've meant which is hard as its almost impossible. also leads to uncertainty in the law, its impossible to know when judges will use this approach.