Statutory Interpretation Rules and Cases.

Statutory Interpretation is the analysis from the judges of the words used in a statute and what context they were meant within. There are four main rules to statutory interpretation, as well as different rules of language and aids.

The Literal Rule is taking the plain and ordinary meaning of the words used in the statute, even if it leads to an absurdity.

Whitely v Chappell: Impersonated a dead person while voting. The offender was found not guilty. This is an example of the literal rule being misapplied.

Fisher v Bell: A flick knife was for sale in the window of a shop. The literal rule applied because they took the words on face value within the statute, and he was found guilty.

Berriman v London North Eastern Railway (LNER): A man died whilst oiling the railway. Oiling did not constitute as maintenance after interpretation via the literal rule. This is an example of unfair outcomes surrounding the literal rule.

The Golden Rule is used if the literal rule would clearly lead to an asburd outcome. There are two types of path when it comes to the golden rule.

• Narrow Approach: Two or more ways of interpreting the word of the statute.
  R v Allen: Whether an offence against a person was the subsection that the law of re-marrying with no divorce proceedings. The word "marry" had to be taken within the context of marital status being married.
• Wide Approach: The word only has one meaning, but the courts can alter it if it will lead to a repugnant outcome.
  Re Sigsworth: A son murdered his mother and then tried to inherit her estate. The golden rule applied as it would have been absurd for the son to receive his mothers estate if he had murdered her.
  Adler v George: Concerned a man being in the vicinity of something rather than on it. It would have been absurd to be liable for being within a prohibited area when you were not there in the first place.

The Mischief Rule gives judges much more freedom and choice as it is a wider approach than the golden or literal rule.

Smith v Hughes: Whether soliciting in the window came under soliciting on the street. Found guilty because the statute clearly intended for soliciting to be banned wherever you were, and not just on the street.

Eastbourne Borough Council v Sterling: Taxi drivers vehicle was within a private taxi rank, parked, without a private taxi license. The outcome was similar to Smith v Hughes because although he was on private land, people were still likely to use his taxi.

Royal College of Nursing v DHSS: Whether abortions were legally allowed to be carried out by nurses. The statute clearly implied that it was meant for back-street abortions, and nurses were allowed to carry out abortions.

The Purposive Approach regards finding out the true meaning of what Parliament intended, and sometimes uses aids that are available.

R v Bentham: A man used fingers as a gun in a threatening manner on the street. He was found guilty as it was clearly used as a threat and the victim felt intimidated anyway.

Jones v Tower Boot Co: There was racism within the workplace against Jones. Tower Boot Co were found guilty as it came under a certain statute. 

• Ejusdem Generis: Words of the same kind.
  Powell v Kempton Park Racecourse:  Illegal to use a house/room/office as a place for betting under the betting act. As the betting enclosure was outside, it did not fall under the list.
• Expressio Unius: One excludes the other.
  R v Inhabitants of Sedgely: Statute raised taxes on land/houses/coalmines. Limestone mines did not apply as they were not listed within the list used in the statute.
• Noscitur a Sociis: Words must be looked at in context.
  Bell v Pengelly Punch:  Floor used for storage (in the corner of the room). A floor used exclusively for storage did not apply to the statute.

• Intrinsic Aid:  An aid within the statute that helps figure out the intent behind it.
  -- Long & Short Title.
  -- The Preamble.
  -- The Intepretation Section (Under the Interpretation Act).
• Extrinsic Aid: An aid outside of the statute that helps figure out the intent behind it.
  -- Dictionaries.
  DPP v Bull: A man was charged with being a prostitute. The words "common prostitute" were looked up in a dictionary and it meant a female, meaning he could not be found guilty.
  -- Law Commission Reports.
  The Black Clawson Report.
  -- Hansard.
  Pepper v Hart: Whether a teacher had to pay taxes on a perk he received. Hansard was referred to, and he was not required to pay tax.