Statutory Interpetation

Statutory Interpetation

1. Rules of Language

   • As well as the main approaches; there are a number of lesser rules known as rules of language. These rules tend ti analyse the meaning of a word based on the surrounding language and context.
     • Expressio Unius Exclusio Alterius
       • Means "the mention of one thing excludes others". Where there is a list of words which is not followed by general words, then the Act applies only tho those items in the list. For this reason the rule is sometimes referred to as the specific rule. IE; The act only applies to things specifically mentioned or listed.
       • TEMPEST VS KILNER (1846)- The court had to decide whther the sale of some stocks and shares has to be evidenced in writing to comply with the Statute of Frauds 1677 which required a contract for the sale of "goods, wares and merchandise" of more than £10 to be evidences in writing. Since the list of "goods, wares and merchandise" was not followed by any general words (like "and another item of value", it only applied to the specific items listed and stocks and shares were, therefore not included.
     • Ejusdem Generis
       • Means "of the same kind". Where there is a list of words followed by general words, then the general words are limited to the same kind of items as the soecific words. Because the rule focuses on the nature of the general words, it is sometimes referred to as the general rule- Anything included in the general words would have to be "of the same type" as the specific things listed.
       • POWELL VS KEMPTON PARK RACECOURSE (1899)- The court had to decide whether an outdoor betting ring would be included under an offence charged as "keeping a house, office, room or other place for betting". The general words "other place for betting" had to be the same type as he specific things "house, office or room". Because all the things in the specific list are indoor rooms and the specific thing in question (the ring) was an outside thing. The act didn't apply.
     • Noscitur a Sociis
       • Means a "word known by the company it keeps". This means that the words must be looked at in context and interpreted accordingly; it involves looking at other words in the same section or at other sections in the Act. Because of this it is sometimnes known as the context rule.
       • PENGELLY VS BELL PUNCH CO (1964)- The court had to decide whether part of the floor used for storage purposes was included in an act which referred to "floors, steps, passages and gangways" needing to be kept clear. Applying NOSCITUR A SOCIIS, it was held that because all the other words were related to passageways- that floor used for storage was not included- it was not in the same context.

2. Presmptions

   • The courts may make use of a number of presumptions which are made when interpreting statutes. For example, there is legal presumption that the crown can't be subject to civil or criminal proceedings unless the statute expressly says it can and that legislation doesn't apply retrospectively.
   • There is a legal presmuption that the crown can't be subject to civil/criminal proceedings unless the statue expressly says it can and that legislation doesn't apply retrospectively
   • One of the most important presumptions is the presumption in favour of criminal cases. It means that, unless otherwise states (a crime which is in strict or absoloute liabillity), then it will always be necessary to prove that the accused had the requiste mens rea to commit the crime.
   • SWEET VS PARSLEY (1970)- Parsely let a property out which the tenants used for taking drugs. She was unaware of this activity but was charged and initially convicted of "being concerned in the management of premises used for drug taking". Contrary to S5(B) of the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965 . However, on appeal, the HOL held that she was not guilty as the presumption that criminal cases (a guilty state of mind- in this case at least her knowledge) was required had not been rebutted.

3. Intrinsic Aids

   • An internal or instrinsic aid is something found within statue itself which may help a judge to interpret it.
     • Long & Short titles: The court can consider either, the long title can be used to give clues as to manage to the meaning of words used in the act. An example is the LAW PROPERTY ACT 1925 where the short title gives very little way.
   • Extrinsic Aids
     • Matter outside the act. It has always been accepted that some external sources can help explain the meaning of an act.
       • Previous acts of parliament on the same topic
         • Historical Setting
           • Earlier Case Law
             • Dictionaries of the time
     • Attitudes have changed. Originally, the courts had very strict rules; other extrinsic aids should not be considered.
       • HANSARD: 1992 there was a firm rule that the courts could not look at what was said in the debates in Parliament. Some years earlier Lord Denning had tried to attack this ban on Hansard in DAVIS VS JOHNSON (1979) which involved the interpretation of the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976. He admitted that he had indeed read Hansard before making his decision.

4. Purposive Approach

   • Goes beyond the mischeif rule in that the court is not just looking to see what the gap was in the old law; the judges are deciding what they believe parliament meant to achieve. It looks to the spirit rather than the letter of the law and tries to give effect to the wider purpose of the law.
   • JONES VS TOWER BOOT COMPANY (1997)- A black employee was abused physically and verbally by some co-workers and sued his employer under the Race Relations Act 1976. The tribunal found in favour of the employer because the co-workers had not been acting "in the course of their employement", because the employer would clearly not have sanctioned these activities. However, on appeal the COA said the act should be construed according to its broad purpose which was to elimanate discrimination and to compensate victims or punish perpetrators. Jones employers were liable.
   • Advantages/ Disadvantages
     • Gives effect to parliaments true intentions
       • Allows the greatest judicial freedom and some critics would argue that it goes directly against the doctrines of seperation of powers.
     • Makes extensive use of extrinsic aids to ensure accurate and informed view on parliment's true intentions is established.
       • Like the mischeif rule; the PA can only be used if Parliament's intentions can be identified.
     • Avoids all absurd, unjst and harsh outcomes of the literal approach and avoids all destructive analysis of language.
       • When iot is suited to the interpretation of EUL it is less suited to the more precise and detailed structure of English Legislation.