Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Statutory Interpretation - Rules (Advantages (follows wording of…
Statutory Interpretation - Rules
Literal Rule
courts give words their plain, ordinary meaning or dictionary meaning
even when the result is illogical or unreasonable
"the court has nothing to do with the question whether the legislature has committed an absurdity"
lead to a harsh decision in :red_flag: LNER v Berriman
lead to an absurd decision in :red_flag: Cheeseman v DPP
:red_flag: R v Judge of the City of London Court: "if the words of the Act are clear, then you must follow them even though they lead to an absurdity"
Golden Rule
modification of the literal rule
courts begin with the literal meaning, but avoids an interpretation that would result in absurdity
two forms: narrow and broad
narrow golden rule
:red_flag: Jones v DPP: if words are capable of more than one meaning, then you can choose between those meanings
:red_flag: Adler v George
broad golden rule
where words have a clear meaning, but following them would lead to a repugnant situation
the court will modify the words of the stature to avoid this horrible situation
:red_flag: Re Sigsworth
Mischief Rule
:red_flag: Heydon's Case: stated that in interpreting a statute, the court should consider:
what was the common law before
what was the mischief (problem) that the common law didn't cover
what was the remedy for this proposed by Parliament
what was the original problem and how was Parliament trying to fix it
gives the court more discretion
:red_flag: Smith V Hughes
:red_flag: Royal College of Nursing v DHSS
majority view: mischief was trying to remedy the practice of dangerous abortions. new techniques.
minority view: words of the Act are clear the other three judges aren't interpreting it, but redrafting it
Purposive Approach
goes beyond the mischief rule as courts consider the purpose of the Act - what was Parliament trying to achieve?
:red_flag: R v Registrar General, ex parte Smith
increasingly used
Advantages
follows wording of Parliament
prevents unelected judge making law
makes the law more certain
easier to predict how the judges will interpret law
Disadvantages
not all Acts are perfectly drafted
words have more than one meaning
can lead to unfair or unjust situations and decisions
Advantages
respects the words of Parliament
allows the judge to choose the most sensible meaning
avoids the worst problems of the literal rule
Disadvantages
can only be used in limited situations
not possible to predict when the courts will use it
it doesn't actually do much to achieve justice ('feeble parachute'
Disadvantages
risk of judicial law making
not as wide as the purposive approach
limited to looking back at the old law
can make the law uncertain
Advantages
promotes the purpose of the law
fills in the gap in the law
produces a 'just' result
Advantages
leads to justice in individual cases
allows for new developments
avoids absurd decisions
Disadvantages
difficult to find Parliament's intention
allows judges to make law
leads to uncertainty in the law