Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION 1 (L5) - Coggle Diagram
STATUTORY INTERPRETATION 1 (L5)
REASONS WHY STATUTORY INTERPRETATION IS REQUIRED
Since 1999 explanatory notes attached to bill / statute may consider these
Uses other internal and external aids
May consider 'interpretation' or 'definition' sections elsewhere in the statute
Applies one of the 'approaches' or 'rules'
Judge may use the Interpretation Act 1978, provides some guidance for commonly used words
EXAMPLE OF SI - BREXIT DDECISION
SC referred to certain presumptions courts make when determining Parliments intention
No retrospective effect
Parliament does not intend to preclude access to the court
Parliament does not intend to legislate in a way that defeats fundamental human rights
SC interpreted European Communities Act 1972 in light of constitutional principles and presumptions made within that Act
Involved statutory interpretation in a very specific context, constitutional law context
'We consider that it is clear that parliament intended to legislate by that act so as to introduce EU law into domestic law... in such a way that this could not be undone by exercise of Crown prerogative power. With the enactment of the ECA 1972, the crown has no prerogative power to affect a withdrawal from the community treaties on whose continued existence the EU law rights introduced into domestic law depend... and on whose continued existence the wider rights of British citizens... also depend. The crown therefore has no prerogative power to affect a withdrawal from the relevant treaties by giving notice under article 50EU of the EU treaty' para 92
Legal question as a matter of constitutional law is the Crown acting through the Executive entitled to use its prerogative powers to give notice under Article 50 or is a statute required?
ECA 1972 took us into the EU, it made constitutional changes that were still being felt to this day
R (on the application of Miller and Others) v The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (2017) 2 WLR 583
The crown could not use the Royal prerogative to carry an act that contravened the ECA.
JUDICIAL APPROACHES TO STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
THERE ARE 4 APPROACHES TO INTERPRETATION
The golden rule
The mischief rule
The literal rule
The unified contextual / purposive approach
THE LITERAL RULE
EXAMPLES
Whiteley v Chappell (1868) 4 QB 147
Fisher v Bell (1961) 1 QB 394
Shopkeeper who displayed in his shop window a flick knife with a ticket stating 'ejector knife--4s'
Section 1 of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 provided that 'any person who manufactures, sells or hires or offers for sale or hire' a flick knife shall be guilty of an offence.
The prosecution argued that the knife was offered for sale in contravention of the Restriction of offensive weapons Act 1959
The defendant said that no such offer had been, or was being, made
Divisional court of the Queen's Bench Division that an offer had not been made
Court gave the word 'offer' a technical legal meaning by reading the statute against its meaning in the general law of contract
Under Contract law, 'display of an article with a price on it in a shop window is merely an 'invitation to treat' and not a legal offer for sale, the acceptance of which would constitute a binding contract' - Lord Diplock
No indication in the statue that parliament had intended that the word 'offer' in the 1959 Act should have a meaning other than the one supplied by the general law of contract.
Lord Diplock in Duport Steels Ltd v Sirs (1980) 1 WLR 142, 157, 'The role of the judiciary is confined to ascertaining from the words that parliament has approved as expressing its intention what that the intention was and to give effect to it'
ADVANTAGES
Respects parliamentary sovereignty; the courts role is restricted
DISADVANTAGES
Can lead to absurdity or unjust conclusion - London and North-eastern Railway Co v Berriman (1946) AC 278
Cannot predict every situation to which legislation will be applied
Gives words in statute their ordinary and natural meaning
Deemed out of date and largely succeeded by more contextual approach to interpretation
Usual starting point in statutory interpretation
Consider whether the literal approach has any role to play in the interpretation of statutes
THE GOLDEN RULE
ADVANTAGES
Prevents absurdity / injustice caused by literal rule
DISADVANTAGES
Rule does not provide any clear meaning as to what is an absurd result
Arguably a less explicit rule than the literal rule
EXAMPLES
R v Allen (1872) LR 1 CCR 367
Adler v George (1964) 2 QB 7
By s.3 the Official Secrets Act 1920, it is an offence for a person 'in the vicinity of any prohibited place' to obstruct any member of Her Majesty's forces
The defendant, Adler, entered a Royal Air Force station, a prohibited place, and obstructed a member of Her Majesty's forces, and was convicted by magistrates
On appeal, the defendant contended that no offence could be committed as the defendant was in the prohibited place and not, as s.3 provides, 'in the vicinity of any prohibited place'
It was argued that literally, 'in the vicinity of' meant 'near' or 'close to' but did not mean 'in' or 'on'
Lord Parker CJ rejected this interpretation and said that s.3 was designed to prevent interferences with Her Majesty's forces when performing duties relating to security of prohibited places.
Viewed against this purpose, it would be absurd that an offence was created by obstructing near a prohibited place and not within the place itself
His Lordship said that the words 'in / or' may be inserted before 'in the vicinity of any prohibited place'
Provides that if the literal rule gives an absurd result, then the judge can substitute a reasonable meaning in light of the statute as a whole