Statutory Interpretation
Literal rule
Golden rule
Mischief rule
Purposive approach
a judge will give words in their plain, ordinary or literal(dictionary) meaning, even if the result is not very sensible.
click to edit
Fisher v Bell (1961)
- Lord Justice Parker applied the literal rule and found that the shopkeeper had not committed offence.
- In contract law, goods on display in a shop are not 'offers' but instead 'invitations to treat'
- The Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 made it an offence to 'offer' such knives for sale.
- A shopkeeper had a flick-knife displayed in his shop with a price tag on it.
click to edit
Whiteley v Chappell (1898)
- A defendant was charged under and Act which made it an offence to impersonate 'any person entitled to vote'
- The defendant had voted under the name of someone who was on the voters list but was however, dead.
- The court held that the defendant was not guilty seeing a dead person is not 'entitled to vote'.
Advantages
Disadvantages
Follows the words that parliament said. Since parliament is the democratic law-making body, it is right that the judges should apply the law exactly how it is written
Makes the law more certain as words are interpreted exactly how they were written
The literal rule assumes that all Acts are correctly written, this is not always the case
When the law is drafted it is not possible to cover every situation that parliament intended
Words may have more than one meaning making the law unclear
It can lead to unfair decisions
Narrow application
Wider application
click to edit
- This is where the words have only one clear meaning, but, if that meaning was used, it would lead to a repugnant situation- a result which should not be allowed.
- In this case, a judge will modify the words of a statute to avoid that problem.
- For example in Re Sigsworth (1935)
click to edit
- This allows the court to choose between two possible meanings of a word or phrase.
- If there is only one meaning, then it must be used.
- An example of the narrow rule is in Adler v George (1964).
Definition
- The golden rule is similar to the literal rule, as it starts by looking at the literal meaning of the words in the statute.
- However, the judge is allowed to avoid an interpretation that would lead to an absurd result.
- There are two rules on how the golden rule should be used:
click to edit
Adler v George (1964)
- The Official Secrets Act 1920 made it an offence to obstruct Her Majesty's Forces 'in the vicinity' of a prohibited place.
- The defendants obstructed HM Forces actually in their base- the prohibited place.
- The defendants argued that they were not guilty, as the literal wording of the Act did not apply to anyone 'in' the prohibited place.
- It only applies to those 'in the vicinity'; that is outside but not close to it.
The Divisional Court found the defendants guilty as it would be absurd to convict offenders outside the barracks but not inside.
click to edit
Re Sigsworth (1935)
- A son murdered his mother.
- Normally the next of kin would inherit the estate as she had not made a will but the court wouldn’t not accept a murderer benefiting from his crime, so the literal rule didn’t apply.
- The court was writing into the act that the ‘issue’ wouldn’t inherit where they had killed the deceased.
Advantages
It respects the exact words of Parliament except in limited circumstances
It provides sensible decisions in cases where the literal rule would lead to a repugnant situation
Disadvantages
It is very limited in its use and can only be used in rare occasions
It has been described as a 'feeble parachute' by Michael Zander, suggesting it is an escape route that can’t actually do much
This is where the judges look at the
law before the Act was made to
determine what 'gap' the Act was
trying to cover.
The court then interprets the Act
in a way to ensure that the 'gap'
which was intended to be covered
is covered.
click to edit
Elliot v Grey (1960)
- In the case of Elliot v Grey (1960), the defendant’s car was parked on a road with its wheel were off the ground as it was suspended and its battery was missing.
- The defendant was charged with the offence of using an uninsured vehicle on the road contrary to the road traffic act 1930.
- The defence argued that the car was not being utilised on the road as it was not able to be driven.
- When translating the act, the court applied the mischief rule and decided that the car was being used on the road; it was considered to be a hazard to other road users and might cause an accident.
- This act was aimed at ensuring road users were compensated if injured by hazards on the road
Advantages
Disadvantages
Judges have greater flexibility as it allows them to look at the gap which was intended to be covered by the Act
It is preferred to the literal and golden rules as it achieves Parliaments intention
Its use has been recommended by the Law Commission
There is a risk of judicial law making as judges are effectively re-writing the words of statute
Use of the mischief rule can lead to uncertainty in the law, making legal advice difficult
It relies on the use of extrinsic aids to meet what is thought to be Parliament's intention
Definition
- There is an argument that even if there were an Act of Parliament, there would still be variations in which rule judges would use.
- It goes further than the mischief rule in that judges do not only look for a gap in the law, but figure out what Parliament meant to achieve in writing the law.
- This was shown well by Lord Denning. In the case of Magor and St Mellons v Newport Corporation, he said ‘We sit here to find out the intention of Parliament and carry it out, and we do this better by filling in the gaps and making sense of the enactment than by opening it up to destructive analysis.’
- This does though raise a controversial question. Should judges follow the clear words of Parliament? Should they follow Parliaments intentions? What are Parliaments intentions?
click to edit
Jones v Tower Boot Co. [1997]
- A young black worker was physically and verbally abused in the workplace by his fellow workers.
- He sued his employers, arguing that they were vicariously liable for the actions of the workers.
- It had to be decided whether the workers were acting in the ‘course of their employment’ under s 32 of the Race Relations Act 1976.
- The employers argued that the abuse was not part of their job and fell outside the ‘course of their employment’.
- The Court of appeal ruled that Parliaments intention when passing the Act was to eliminate discrimination in the workplace, and this would not be achieved by giving a narrow interpretation to the words ‘course of employment’.
- As a result, the employers were held liable.
Advantages
Disadvantages
Justice is achieved in each case
Judges can take account of new technology introduced after the passing of an Act
Judges can fill any gaps in the law left by parliament or when dealing with new situations
It is undemocratic, as judges are interpreting laws
It may be time consuming to work out what Parliament meant
Legal advice is difficult, as lawyers will not know until the final judgement whether the judges are prepared to use this approach
It may be impossible to find parliaments intention