Statutory Interpretation

This is when the words of the act are clear and you must follow them even though they lead to a manifest absurdity. The court has nothing to do with the question whether the legislature has committed an absurdity.

CASE: Whiteley v Chappel (1868)

Offence to impersonate anybody 'entitled to vote'. D impersonated a dead person, as dead people are not entitled to vote the defendant was not guilty

CASE: London & North Eastern Railway Co. v Berriman (1946)

Railway worker was killed while doing maintenance work, oiling the track. His widow tried to claim compensation as there was nobody on look-out. Fatal Accidents Act stated that a look-out should be provided for any men 'relaying or repairing' a track. As he was not relaying or repairing, his widow did not get compensation.

This is a modification of the Literal Rule. It starts by looking at the literal meaning of words but then the court is allowed to avoid an interpretation which would lead to an absurd result.

Under the narrow application of the golden rule the court may only choose between possible meaings of a word or phrase, the wider application of the golden rule allows the courts to modify the words of a statue to avoid a repugnant result.

CASE: Adler v George (1964)

Official Secrets Act made it an offence to obstruct Her Majesty's Force 'in the vicinity' of a prohibited area. Defendant was obstructing the individual in the prohibited area. The Golden Rule was used to modify the statue, D was found guilty.

CASE: Re Sigworth (1935)

Son had murdered his mother, who had not made a will. This meant that the money would have gone to the son. The court was not prepared to give the son the inheritance so the golden rule was used to prevent the repugnant situation from happening.

Using this rule, the court should look to see what the law was before the act was passed in order to discover the 'mischief' that the Act intended to cover. The court should then interpret the Act in such a way that the gap is covered.

CASE: Smith v Hughes (1960)

Act stated that women could not be prostitutes 'in a street or public place'. Six women were convicted of doing this on the balcony of a house and through the windows of a house. Lord Parker said that the Act was passed to 'clean up the streets, to allow people to walk along the streets without being solicited by prostitutes'. The mischief rule was used, and the women were found guilty.

CASE: Eastbourne Borough Council v Stirling

Taxi driver was charged with 'plying for hire in any street' without a license. His car was parked in a taxi rank, not the street. He was found guilty as he was likely to get customers from the street.

Goes beyond the mischief rule in that the court is not just looking at the gap in the Act, but they are looking at what the purpose of the Act was.

CASE: R v Registrar-General (1990)

A man fulfilled all requirements to meet his birthmother and was prepared to see a counsellor. The defendant has been convicted of two murderers and was detained as he suffered from a psychotic illness. A psychiatrist believed that he may be hostile towards his mother if he met her. To keep his mother safe, they used the purposive approach and decided that the act was not intended to promote serious crime, so the defendant was refused details.

CASE: R v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (2003)

The House of Lords had to decide whether organisms created by cell nuclear replacement were classed under the definition of 'embryo'. The definition stated that 'fertilisation' had to occur. Through this method, fertilisation dies not occur. The purposive approach was used and thew courts decided that Parliament would have intended to give the same rights to a cloned embryo that a fertilised embryo was given.

The main advantage is that the rule follows the words that the democratically elected Parliament has used. Parliament is our law-making body and it is right that judges should apply the law exactly as it is written. Using the literal rule prevents judicial law making. HOWEVER using the literal rule, the judges may not be applying the intended purpose of the Act. For example the intended purpose of the Act was not represented in London & North Eastern Railway v Berriman.

Using the literal rule should make the law more certain, as the law will be interpreted exaclty as it is written. This makes it easier for lawyers to know what the law is and how judges will apply it. HOWEVER the wording may be ambiguous, for example in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 where difficulty rose from defining the word 'type'.

The literal rule assumes that every Act is perfectly drafted. In fact it is not always possible to word an Act so that it covers every situation Parliament meant, for example, in Whiteley v Chappell, the defendant was not guilty of voting under another person's name. HOWEVER it prevents judicial law making, as you use the words which Parliament used.

Another problem is that words may have more than one meaning, so that the Act is unclear. Often in dictionaries words are defined with several different meanings. This was shown when there was difficulty interpreting the word 'type' in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991.

Following the words exactly can lead to unfair or unjust decisions. This was shown in London & North Eastern Railway v Berriman where a widow was unable to claim compensation when he was killed while maintaining the track. Her claim failed because literally he was not 'repairing or relaying' the track.

Professor Michael Zander has denounced the literal rule as being 'mechanical' and 'divorced from the realities of the use of language'

The golden rule respects the exact words of Parliament except in limited situations. Its main advantage is that where there is a problem with using the literal rule, it provides an 'escape route'.

The fact that it is only used in limited situations means that it avoids the judges making law to any great extent. As it is based in the literal rule, it respects the words that Parliament has chosen except in very limited situations.

It allows the judge to choose the most sensible meaning where there is more than one meaning to the words in the Act. It avoids absurd outcomes. It can also provide sensible decisions in cases where the literal rule would lead to a repugnant decision, for example, Re Sigworth would benefit from his crime if the literal rule was used.

The main disadvantage is that it is very limited in its use. It is only used on rare occasions.

Another problem is that it is not always possible to predict when courts are going to use the golden rule

Michael Zander described the golden rule as a 'feeble parachute', meaning it is an escape route that cannot do very much.

It can be argued that it is not always possible to define what is 'absurd'. This is a subjective decision and use of the rule may give the judge too much discretion.

The mischief rule promotes the purpose of the law as it allows the judge to look back at the gap in the law which the Act intended to cover. The emphasis is on making sure the gap is filled. For example, in Smith v Hughes, the purpose of the law was to stop men being solicited by prostitutes in the streets.

Another advantages is that this approach is more likely to produce a 'just' result. It also means that judges will try to interpret the law in the way that it was intended to work. HOWEVER people may see this as a disadvantage as it could be seen as judicial law making.

The law commission stated in 1969 that the mischief rule should be the only type of statutory interpretation used.

The main disadvantage is that using this rule there is the risk of judicial law making. This can be seen by the words of Lord Parker in Smith v Hughes when he said that it was his view on how Parliament was trying to deal with mischief.

The judges do not always agree on their decision. This was shown in the case of Royal College of Nursing v DHSS when there was a 2-3 decision.

The use of the mischief rule may lead to uncertainty in the law. It is impossible to know when judges will use the law and what result it may lead to. This is a disadvantage as it means that lawyers will find difficulty in advising their clients on the law and the result of the case.

The mischief rule is not as wide as the purposive law as it is limited to looking back at the gap in the old law. It cannot be used for a more general consideration of the purpose of the law.

The main advantage of the purposive approach is that it leads to justice in individual cases. It is a more broad approach which allows the law to cover more situations than applying the words literally.

The purposive approach is particularly useful where there is new technology which was unknown when the law was enacted, this was demonstrated in R v Secretary of State. If the literal rule had been used in that case, it would have been necessary for Parliament to make a new law to deal with the situation.

It also gives judges more discretion than using the literal meanings of words. This avoids an absurd result, for example, if the purposive approach was used in WHiteley v Chappell, the defendant would most probably have been found guilty as the judges would have decided that Paliament's intention was to prevent people from voting in another person's name.

The main disadvantage of the purposive approach is that it may mean that the judges refuse to follow the clear words of Parliament. It may lead to judicial law making.

It is difficult to discover the intention of Parliament. There are reports of debates in Parliament (Hansard), but these give every detail of debates including those MPs who did not agree with the law that was in discussion. 

It leads to uncertainty in the law, as it is impossible to know when judges will use this approach and what result it may lead to.

This states that where there is a list of specific words followed by general words, then the general words are interpreted in line with the specific words.

CASE: Hobbs v CG Robertson Ltd

Workman injured his eye when brickwork that he was removing splintered. Claimed compensation under Construction Regulations 1961. Made it a duty for employers to provide goggles for workmen when 'breaking,cutting, dressing or carving of stone, concrete, **** or similar material'. Brick was not ejusdem generis with stone. The workman's claim failed.

There must be at least 2 specific words before a general rule

CASE: Allen v Emmerson

The court had to interpret the phrase 'theatres and other places of amusement' and decide if a funfair fell into this category. As there was only one specific word, funfair did not come under the general term as it was not the same type of amusement as a theatre.

This phrase means: the express 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 to the items in the list.

CASE: Tempest v Kilner (1846)

The court had to consider whether the Statue of Frauds 1677 applied to a contract for the sale of stocks and shares. The list 'goods, wares and merchandise' was not followed by general words, so the court held that only contracts for those three types of things were affected by the statue, so stocks and shares were not affected.

This phrase means: a word is known by the company it keeps.

This means that the words must be looked at in context and interpreted accordingly. Other words in the act are looked at to interpret the word.

CASE: Inland Revenue Commissioners v Frere

the court had to interpret 'interest, annuities and other annual interest'. The first use of interest on its own could have meant any interest paid, whether daily, monthly or annually. Because of the words 'other annual interest' in the section, the court decided that 'interest' only meant annual interest.

These are things in the statue which make the meaning of words clearer. Courts can consider the long title, the short title and the preamble. A preamble states the purpose of the Act. Modern statues very rarely have a preamble, and if they do, it is usually short. For example, the Theft Act 1968 states that it is an Act to modernise the law of theft. Some Acts will have an interpretation section - the Theft Act 1968 states that 'property' includes 'money and all other property, real or personal, including things in action and other intangible property'

Sometimes an interpretation section will just give an extended meaning to certain words. The Thefrt Act 1968 states that 'building' includes an 'inhabited vehicle or vessel' , meaning caravans and houseboats are included.

Other intrinsic aids include any headings, it is also possible to look at other sections in the Act.

CASE: Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah

Defendants were charged under s 13(1)(c) of the National Lottery act, this section did not inclde any words indicating about intention, but another section of the act mentioned a 'due diligence'. The courts decided that s 13(1)(c) was a strict liabiltiy offence.

Some intrinsic aids are placed in the statue by Parliament to make it clearer. This means that the courts are more likely to come to the interpretation that Parliament intended.

In some statues there may be a definition section which sets out what is meant by certain words or phrases. In the Theft Act 1968, definitions are given for a number of words. For example, in the offence of 'burglary', the word 'building' is used. There is a definition for this word which states that it applies to 'an inhibited vehicle or vessel'

They are not included in every statue. In particular, modern statues do not have long preambles.

Some intrinsic aids such as headings may have been placed by printers and may not reflect Parliament's intention.

Definistions are not always included and this can lead to uncertainty. In the Theft Act 1968, the word 'dishonesty' is not defined, although there is a section setting out situations which are not to be regarded as dishonest. The lack of definition for 'dishonesty' has meant that judges have to interpret it in case law.

These are outside of the Act, which can help explain the meaning of words in an Act.

Examples are:

Dictionaries of the time of passing the act - these help interpret words which have changed over time. For example, a dictionary of 1847 was used in the case of Cheeseman v DPP as the Act in question was passed in 1847.

Hansard - this is an official report of what was said in parliament when the act was debated.

Hansard is available for everyone to consult

As the entire debate is recorded, it helps make words in statues clear.

CASE: AE Beckett and Sons Ltd v Midland Electricity

the meaning of s21 of the Electricity Act 1989 was in issue. Lord Phillips said hansard had imediately 'made clear what had previously been obscure'

Referring to hansard is not always helpful. The particular words in question may not have been mentioned in the debate. Alternatively, what was said may not make the words any clearer.

In R v Deegan the Court of Appeal was concerned with the meaning of a 'folding pocketknife'. The courts found that the statementsmade by the minister in the debate were not clear and they refused to take them into account.

Additional costs are involved as lawyers feek obliged to spend time reading through all relevant debates in order to avoid being sued for negligence by their clients.