Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Rules (Literal Rule (Fisher v Bell (1961) (Flick-knives on show in a shop…
Rules
Literal Rule
To give words their natural, ordinary, dictionary meaning, even if it results in absurdity
Fisher v Bell (1961)
Flick-knives on show in a shop window, were an invitation to treat (make an offer to buy), not ‘an offer for sale’, which was banned by the Act in question.
Where the words have a technical legal meaning then under the literal rule this will be used. As a result Parliament had to change the Act.
-
-
Purposive Approach
It allows judges to examine the purpose of the Act and to interpret doubtful phrases in accordance with that purpose.
The purposive approach is a modern version of the mischief rule.It is consistent with the EU approach
Pepper v Hart (1993)
-
The court referred to statements made by a Finance minister when the Act was debated in Parliament to discover Parliament’s intention.
-
Mischief Rule
It allows the judge to look at the gap / defect in the law that Parliament had felt it necessary to fill by passing the Act.
-
Smith v Hughes (1960)
The words ‘soliciting in the street’ in The Street Offences Act 1958 were held to include soliciting from the window of a house.
The court said that the aim of the Act was to allow people to walk along the streets without being solicited.
-
Golden Rule
-
The narrow use
Where a word can have more than one literal meaning, the narrow use of the golden rule allows the judge to choose the meaning that avoids absurdity.
R v Allen (1872)
-
Literally, it is impossible to commit the offence, because you cannot marry if you are already married.
-
The wider use
Where there is only one literal meaning of a word or phrase but to apply it would cause an absurdity, then the broad use of the golden rule allows the judge to modify this meaning to avoid absurdity.
Re Sigsworth (1935).
A son, who murdered his mother, was prevented from inheriting his mother’s estate under the Administration of Estates Act 1925.
The wording of the Act was clear & unambiguous - D was the ‘next of kin’ - but the court did not want the murderer to benefit from his crime as this outcome would be absurd and repugnant