Statutory Interpretation 2 -

Statutory Interpretation 2 -

1. Finding Parliaments intention -

   • Intrinsic Aids
     • These are within the statute which help make it clearer, the court can consider the long title, the short title and the Preamble. Older acts have a preamble which sets out why parliament enacted the statute. new statutes rather have a no preamble or a very brief one. i.e. the theft act 1968 is an act to modernise the law on theft. The other useful internal aids are headings before sections or groups. they also may use marginal notes explaining difficult sections. (these aren't normally parliaments intentions but may explain the section better.)
   • Extrinsic Aids -
     • Extrinsic Aids are aids outside of the act, normally and external source. the Sources could include- Previous acts on the same topic, historical setting, earlier case law, dictionaries of the time. Originally extrinsic aids were not to be taken into consideration, however, there are 2 new sources the courts WILL take into consideration. - Hansard - which is the offical eport of what is said in parliament during the debate for the act. Reports of law reform bodies i.e. law commission. international conventions or regulations are also used if they coinside with english law.
       • The use of Hansard - Until 1992 courts were not allowed to know what was debated in courts during the act. Lord Denning did admit to using this though, in Davis V Johnson (1979) which was a domestic violence case, he said Hansard helped him make his decision. The HoL did disapprove of this and said is was an unreliable guide. However In Pepper V Hart (1993) they relaxed the rules and allowed Hansard to be used, but only when the words in the act or ambiguous or obscure, the Lord chancellor opposed the use on practical grounds. its only allowed to be used widely in European or international regulations, this was pointed out in the queen's bench divisional court when it heard the three rivers district case where they can use Hansard to interpret the statute effectively.
       • Law Reform Reports - aw with hansard, courts can use reports which were made by law reform agencies, this is often used in the mischief rule to discover the gap in the law
     • International conventions - in Fothergill V Monarch airlines (1980) - the HoL while translating the original convention the full ture meaning may have been lost in translation, in the case the courts could use any explanatory notes published with the convention. tis was allowed because other countrys also use this method when translating law.
     • Case example of Extrinsic Aids - Laroche V Spirit of Adventure - Claiment was injured in air balloon landing - the meaning of 'aircraft' was v important. - if the air ballon was an aircraft the claim would fail as it had not been made within 2 years - the court used a dictonary, the air navigation act and the international convention which all said the air balloon was classed as an aircraft. - this resulted in the claim failing.

2. The Effect of the EU Law

   • The purposive approach is one which is preferred by most EU countires. the European Court also uses it. since joining the EU it has effected english law in 2 ways- 1. they had to accept the law which was passed by this method. 2. judges having to use it made it more common and judges began to understand it more.
   • Interpreting EU Law -
     • English judges must interpret EU Law in light of the wording and purpose of the Law. in the Treaty of Rome it states all countires are to ensure they fulfill the obligations.

3. The Effect of the Human Rights Act 1998 -

   • The act states Legislation must be read and given effect in ways which is compatible with the human rights act, this applies to any case when the rights are breached or mentioned, but it does not apply when the rights aren't mentioned. i.e. the Rent Act 1997 applied when a tenant died there parter or spouse was allowed to take over the tenancy.. in the case Mendoza the question was whether it applied to same sex partners. the HoL had previously said same sex partners did not have the right but this went against the human rights act as a discrimination on the grounds of gender, which the act forbids, the CoA had to read the act as ' as if they were his wife or husband' , this then allowed same sex partners to have he same rights as opposite sex couples.

4. Rules of Language -

   • The literal rules doesn't take words into complete isolation, it is common sense to also look at the other words in the act. to see if they affect the word or phrase, in looking for other phrases or words . the courts were given rules which would help when constructing a sentence - 1. the Ejudem Generis rule . 2. the express mention of one thing excludes others. 3. the word is known by the company it keeps..
     • The ejusden generis rule -
       • Where a list of words is followed by general words, the general words are limited to the same meaning as the specific words.
       • Cases -
         • Hobbs V Robertson (1970) - workman injured his eye. with brick - claimed compensation - the regulation said the employers should of provided goggles - the regulation said the materials were to be concrete, stone, slag or similar materials. - court held brick didn't come within the term similar, the other materials were hard while brick was soft - this made the court decision.
         • Allen V Emmerson (1944) - The court had to interpret the phrase Theatres and other places of amusement' they decided a funfair was under other places of amusement.
   • The mention of one thing excludes the other -
     • the list of words are not followed by general ones, then the act only applies to that item.
       • Case -
         • Tempest V Kilner (1846) - The court had to decide whether the 'sales of goods, wares, and merchandise' meant stocks and shares the courts decided it didnt as it was followed by no general words. stocks and shares were not mentioned.
   • The word is known by the company it keeps -
     • This means the words have to be looked at in context and interpreted accordingly, it involves looking at words in the same or different sections,
     • Cases -
       • Inland Revenue V Frere (1965) - case involved the interpretation of rules = 'interest, annuities or other annual interests'. they had to decide whether interest meant daily monthly or annually, the courts decided due to it saying ;annual interest' , it meant annually.
       • Bromley London Borough Council V Greater London Council (1982) - could GLC offer a cheap fare scheme on their transport systems, they would lose profit (make a loss), HoL looked into the whole act, they decided that 'economic' meant the company/business had to make a profit to be legal. so it would be illegal for GLC to run at lower costs

5. Presumptions

   • The courts will sometimes make certain presumptions or assumptions about the law, the the statute states they cannot make assumptions they are unable to do so.
     • The Most important presumptions -
       • 1. the presumption that common law is still common law unless changed by parliament, like in the Criminal evidence Act, it did not specify whether a spouse had to give evidence against their partner, the judges took this a presumption that they didn't have to give evidence. now under s80 ones spouse and be forced to given evidence under oath.
         • 2. A Presumption that mens rea is required in criminal cases - the basic common rule is that mens rea is needed for a criminal crime unless it states it in the statute, Case - Sweet V parsley - the D't owned a house which she rented to students, she was arrested due to there being cannabis on site, but because she had no mens rea she was not convicted, key issue was whether mens rea was required, the act did not say there was need for knowledge of the events. the HoL held she was not guilty as she didn't know and mens rea was required - she would be stigmatised by society.
           • 3. The Presumption that the crown is not bound by statute unless the act says so.
             • 4. The presumption that the act will only effect the cases following the act being past, this doesn't include previous cases.