Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Statutory interpretation - Coggle Diagram
Statutory interpretation
why it's needed.
It helps judges to understand the statute in an act of parliament. reasons:
→a broad term.
→ambiguity.
→a draft error.
→new developments.
→changes in the use of language.
Mischief rule: gives the judge more discretion. Condition comes from Hayden's case [1584].
Four points court should consider:
1.What was the common law before making the act?
2.What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide?
3.What was the remedy of the parliament hath resolved and appointed to cure the disease of the Commonwealth?
- The true reason of the remedy, then the office of all judges is always to make sure such construction as shall suppress the mischief and advance the remedy.
Cases that use this rule:
→ Smith v Hughes [1960]
→ Eastbourne borough council v sterling [2000]
→Royal College of nursing v DHSS [1981]
Advantages:
→promotes the purpose of law, how's the judge to look back at the gap in the law the act was designed to cover.
→emphasis on making sure that the gap is filled.
→more likely to produce a 'just' result.
Disadvantages:
→risk of judicial law making.
→not as wide as purposive approach.
→limited to looking back at the old law.
→ can make the law uncertain.
Literal rule: used as the starting point for interpreting any legislation.The courts will give the plain, ordinary or literal meaning, even if the result is not very sensible. Idea was expressed by Lord Esha in R v Judge of the city of London court [1982]. cases that use this rule:
→Whiteley v chapel [1868].
→ London & north-eastern railway Co. v Berriman [1946]
Advantages:
→follows the words that the democratically elected parliament had used.
→ makes the normal certain as the law is interpreted exactly as it is written.
Disadvantages:
→not all acts are perfectly drafted.
→can have more than one meaning.
→ can lead to unfair/just decisions.
Golden rule: modification of the literal rule. allowed to avoid an interpretation which would lead to an absurd result. two views:
→ narrow view- can you choose between possible meanings, if there is only one meaning that must be used.
→wider application view- if the word has a meaning which can lead to an unfair result, court can modify the word.
Cases that use this rule:
→Alder v George [1964].
→ Re Sigsworth [1953].
Advantages:
→provides an 'escape route'.
→respects words Parliament has chosen in limited situations.
→allows George to choose the most sensible meaning.
→avoids absurd outcomes.
→avoids the worst problems of the literal rule.
Disadvantages:
→ only be used in limited situations.
→ not possible to predict.
→ it is a 'feeble parachute'. (Zander)
Purposive approach: where the courts look to see what is the purpose of the law passed by Parliament. Approach goes beyond a mischief rule, judges are deciding what they believe Parliament meant to achieve, looking to see what the purpose of the act was. cases:
→R v Registrar-General, ex parte Smith [1990]
→R( on the application of Quinvalle) v Human fertilisation and embryo authority 2003]
Advantages:
→ leads to justice in individual cases.
→ useful where there is new technology which was known when law was intact.
→ charge more discretion, avoids an absurd situation.
Disadvantages:
→difficult to find parliaments intention.
→allows Judge to make law.
→leads to uncertainty in law.
Rules of language:the courts have developed a number of minor rules which could help to make the meaning of the words and phrases clear.
1.ejusdem generis rule- where list of specific words followed by general word, general words interpreted in a line with the specific words. case: Hobbs v CG Robertson Ltd [1970] must be too specific words in a list of all the general word/phrase for this role to operate.
2.Expressio unius exclusio alterius -where there is a list of words which is not followed by general words, applies only to the terms of the list. case: Tempest v Kilner [1846].
3.Noscitur a sociis- the words must be looked at in context and interpreted accordingly. case: inland revenue commissioners v Frere [1965].
Intrinsic aids: matters within the statute itself that may help to make its meaning clearer. older statutes usually have a preamble. some Acts have an interpretation section, sometimes just give an extended meaning to certain words. case: Harrow LBS v Shah Shah [1999]. which shows its possible to look at other sections of the act as they may be helpful.
Advantages:
→makes law clearer.
→definition section.
Disadvantages:
→ not in every statute.
→might be placed by printers.
→definitions not always included.
Extrinsic aids
They go outside the Act, which helps explain the meaning of the words in the Act.
-