Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Statutory interpretation, 4 types - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Gives effect to Parliament’s true intentions
      - The rule makes extensive use of extrinsic and intrinsic aids to ensure an accurate and informed view of Parliament’s intention is established
      - It avoids all the absurd, unjust and harsh outcomes of the literal approach and avoids the destructive analysis of language
  - - - Constitutionally this approach allows the greatest judicial freedom and some critics would argue that it goes directly against the doctrine of Separation of Powers and Supremacy of Parliament
      - Like the Mischief rule, the purposive approach can only be used if Parliament’s intentions can be identified
      - Whilst it is suited to the interpretation of European law, it is less suited to the more precise and detailed structure of English legislation
- - - - R v Allen
        
        Will taking the ordinary and natural meaning of the word/words lead to an absurdity?
        
        Is the word/words in question is ambiguous?
        
        Is the word/words capable of more than one meaning?
    - - R v Sigsworth
        
        The broad approach is a wider (ie broader) application of the golden rule and is used where
        
        the words only have ONE clear meaning and the word(s) are not ambiguous.
        
        By giving the plain meaning would prove unacceptable (eg a repugnant situation)
  - - - Prevents the absurdity and injustice caused by the application of the literal rule.
      - To an extent the rules still respects Parliamentary sovereignty as judges are only correcting errors not deciding what Parliament intended
      - Go beyond the literal rule by looking at Parliament’s intention in passing the Act
  - - - This rule gives too much power to judges and effectively decide what the law is
      - Too much discretion which is undemocratic
      - Using the rule can lead to inconsistency – what is absurd/unjust – there is no guidance given
      - Really still very literal and therefore same problems as the literal rule
      - Judges are, to some extent, re-writing statutes – adding work
      - Makes it difficult for a lawyer to advise their clients
- - - - It helps avoid the absurd injustice literal rule decision
      - It allows for ‘quick repairs’ to bad laws by allowing immediate reform and improvements to the law as the case is interpreted to avoid the mischief behind the act.
      - Allows judges to give Parliament’s will (true intentions) despite a degree of discretion
  - - - The rule is extremely old and set at a time when there were very few statutes and they were not complicated therefore easier to work out Parliament’s intentions.
      - It must be possible to discover the mischief which can be difficult.
      - Rule allows for judicial law-making and subjective decision making.