Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Chapter 5: Statutory Interpretation (5.1 The need for statutory…
Chapter 5: Statutory Interpretation
5.1 The need for statutory interpretation
A broad term
There may be words that cover several possibilities.
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991
the act had a phrase stating 'any dog of the type known as the pit bull terrier'.
Does type mean the same as breed. Staffordshire Bull Terrier which is a nanny dog was mistaken for a pit bull terrier which meant that many people had their dogs destroyed and they were criminals because the law wasn't clear on wether it was just pit bull terriers or other dogs as well.
1993 Brock v DPP found that type had a wider meaning than breed. This meant that it included not just dogs that were pedigree pit bull terriers but also dogs that had a number of characteristics of such a dog.
Ambiguity
This is where a word has two or more meanings; it may not be clear which meaning should be used.
A drafting error
There may have been an error in the original bill which was passed through by parliament and not noticed.
Offences against the person act 1861
section 18 uses the word 'cause' while section 20 uses the word 'inflict'.
The case R v Burstow (1997) stated that the words did not have the exact same meaning, 'it would absurd to differentiate between them'.
New developments
New technology may mean that an old act act of Parliament does not cover present day situations.
Royal college of nursing v DHSS (1981) where medical science and methods had changed since the introduction of the abortion act in 1967.
Changes in the use of language
The meaning of words can change over the years
Cheeseman v Director of Public Prosecutions (1990)
The policemen weren't passengers due to the meaning of it in the dictionary when the law was written.
5.3 The purposive approach
5.3.1 Literal approach versus purposive approach
Case:
Literal
LNER v Berriman - not relaying or repairing track but was oiling literally oiling is not relyaing or repairing so could not claim compensation.
Words taken in their ordinary grammatical meaning.
Advantages
Leaves law making to parliament.
Makes law more certain.
Disadvantages
Assumes that every Act is perfectly crafted.
Words have more than one meaning.
Can can lead to absurd results.
Can lead to unjust decisions.
Purposive
R (Quintavelle) v Sec of State for Health - stated an embryo meant 'a live human embryo where fertilisation is complete'. embryos created by cell nuclear replacement - so no fertilisation. Parliament couldn't distinguish between an embryo so it is allowed.
Looks for the purpose for Parliament and interprets the law to ensure that purpose.
Advantages
Leads to justice in individual cases.
Broad approach covering more situations.
Allows for new technology.
Disadvantages
Leads to judicial law making
Can make law uncertain.
Difficult to discover the intention of parliament.
An approach to statutory interpretation in which the courts look to see what is the purpose of the law.
Example:
R v Registrar-General, ex parte Smith (1990) the registrar general has to give any person over the age of 18 their birth mothers details when they ask for it unless they were adopted before 1975 where they have to go to a meeting, however one man was trying to get his birth records but was in a criminal mental facility for killing people, so stye courts decided that in that case it would be dangerous to let him know as it was very likely harm would come to his birth mother.
5.2 The three rules
5.2.1 The literal rule
A rule of statutory interpretation that gives the words their plain and ordinary or dictionary meaning.
Look in the dictionary of the time when it was made.
Examples:
Whiteley v Chappell (1868)
Defendant charged under a section which made it an offence to impersonate 'any person entitled to vote' - impersonated someone entitled to vote - the dead person is not in the literal meaning entitled to vote - not guilty.
London & North Eastern Railway Co. v Berriman (1946)
A railway worker was killed whilst doing maintenance work oiling points along a railway. his widow tried to get compensation because there was no lookout man - Fatal Accidents Acts 1976. It said 'relaying or repairing' the court took this literally so she had no claim.
5.2.2 The golden rule
A rule of statutory interpretation. It is a modification of the literal rule and avoids an interpretation that is absurd.
If there are two options and the literal option is repugnant so they should use the next option to give a better result.
Examples:
Adler v George (1964) - narrow view
The Official Secrets Act 1920 made it an offence to obstruct her Majesty's forces 'in the vicinity' of a prohibited place. defendants were in the prohibited place and the literal meaning of vicinity is outside but close to. This mean that using the literal rule they would have been found no guilty but it would have be absurd if those causing obstruction outside were guilty and those inside were not.
Re Sigsworth (1935) - wider view
A son had murdered his mother who had not made a will, so it would have been inherited by her next of kin which would have been her son who had murdered her. this is according to the Administration of Justice Act 1925. The court was not prepared to let the murderer benefit from his crime so it was held that the wouldn't receive it as it would be repugnant.
5.2.3 The mischief rule
A rule of statutory interpretation that looks back to the gap in the previous law and interprets the act to cover the gap.
Examples:
Smith v Hughes (1960)
Interprets the Street Offences Act 1959 which means that 'it shall be an offence for a common prostitute to loiter or solicit in a street or a public place for the purpose of prostitution.
women were sitting behind windows and on balconies which weren't actually on the street which is what they argued using the literal rule. however the judge said that looking back at why that law was made and it was to stop people being harassed as they walked along the street which would mean that these women were found guilty using the mischief rule.