Statutory Interpretation

The need for statutory interpretation:

The court has the task of decide the exact meaning of a word. This is why words can be ambiguous.

• A broad term:
• Disputes on how wide a word covers.
• E.g. Dangerous Dogs Act 1991: any dogs of the “type” of the pit bull terrier. Brock v DPP 1993 & Queen’s Bench Divisional Court. Type meant “characteristics”
• Ambiguity:
• Word has 2 or more meanings, not clear which one to be used.
• A drafting error
• The Parliamentary Council might have made an error that the Parliament did not notice
• Especially via multiple amendments.
• New developments
• New technology means that old Acts does not cover present situations
• Royal College of Nursing v DHSS 1981 how methods had changed after the Abortion Act 1967
• Changes in the use of language:
• Changes in meaning of a word over time.
• Cheeseman v DPP 1990. Passenger meant “foot passenger, wayfarer or passersby.

Literal approach vs purposive approach

Literal approach: trying to decide the  meaning of words.

Purposive approach:

• Deciding the purpose of the Act
• Accept that Acts cannot cover all situations
• In EU law the purposive approach is taken (so many different languages)

The 3 rules

Different approaches to interpreting laws. Judges may use whichever one they like. However, after the decision the rule of judicial precedent is followed (all future cases referred to this case).

The literal rule (LR)

• Use the word’s original meaning even if it is absurd
• Lord Esher R v Judge of the City of London Court (1892):
• “If the words of an act are clear then you must follow them even though they lead t a manifest absurdity. The court has nothing to do with the question whether the legislature has committed an absurdity.”
• Used as the starting point to interpreting legislation

Cases using the literal rule:

• Whiteley v Chappel (1868): impersonate any person entitled to vote – dead person – not guilty
• London & North Eastern Railway co v Berriman 1946 (harsh decisions) – killed while oiling railway lines – no lookout – no compensation as not included in the Fatal Accidents Act (relaying/repairing).
• Fisher v Bell (1961): flick knife invitation for treat but not for sale. Not guilty.

Advantages:

• Parliament is our democratic law making body and judges should understand the law exactly as it is written.
• Prevent law from being altered by unelected judges.
• Makes law more certain – easier understand and for judges to apply

Disadvantages

• Assumes every act is perfectly drafted and covers all situations (Whitely v Chappel 1868)
• Words may have several meanings (e.g. Dangerous Dogs Ac 1991)
• Unfair decisions (e.g. London & North Eastern Railway co v Berriman 1946)

The golden rule (GR)

• Modification of the LR
• Court uses LR but is allowed to avoid an absurd result
• There are two views on how the GR should be used:
• The narrow view:
• Lord Reid in Jones v DPP 1962: If the words express in an Act has several meanings you can chose one but beyond this you cannot go.
• If there is one meaning then that meaning must be taken.
• The wider view:
• Courts can modify the words in an Acts if found that the exact meaning of the words give an absurd result.

Cases using the GR

• R v Allen (1872): one cannot ‘marry’ while one’s spouse is still alive – ‘marry’ means to take part in any ceremony of marriage (if marry uses its primary meaning then nobody can be caught for bigamy – not legal) (Offences Against the Person Act 1861)
• Wider application: Re Sigsworth (1935): a son murdered his mother but is entitled to inherit her possessions under the Administration of Justice Act 1925 (the son is her ‘issue’). However, t

Advantages of the GR

• Respects the parliaments words but is still realistic.
• Escape route from absurdity
• Enables judge to chose the most sensible meaning. (e.g. Re Sigsworth)
• Avoids most problems of GR

Disadvantages of the golden rule

• Very limited in its use, only used on rare occasions.
• Cannot predict what the court will use with GR
• An escape route although it cannot do much (Prof M.Zander: “feeble parachute”)

The mischief rule (MR)

Gives judges more discretion than the other two. Definition from Heydon’s case (1584), four points of consideration:

• ‘What was the common law before the making of the Act?’
• What mischief was the Act designed to remedy?
• What was the remedy that the Parliament was trying to provide?
• The true reason of the remedy.

Court has to find out what mischief the Act was trying to cover. Court should interpret Act in such a way that the mischief is covered.

Cases using the mischief rule

• Smith v Hughes (1960): MR used to interpret s1(1) of the Street offences Act 1959 (offence to loiter or solicit in street/public place for prostitution)
• Appeal: women were not in “street/public place” but in windows but still trying to attract men.
• MR used – Prostitution is the mischief that was intended to be covered – Guilty
• Lord Parker’s quote pg. 50
• Eastbourne Borough Council v Stirling (2000): taxy plying for hire in street w/o license. Guilty even though taxi was on private land and not ‘street’.
• Royal college of Nursing v DHSS (1981): Abortion Act 1967 pregnancy terminated by ‘registered medical practitioner’ (doctors). Present technology means that nurses also apply.
• Dispute in House of Lords (HOL).
• 3 judges use MR while other 2 use LR. MR judges argue that the purpose of the law was to protect women as long as abortion was followed with enough expertise and stop illegal abortion.
• Other 2 wanted to stick to the act can quoted: the judges were not interpreting the Act but ‘redrafting it with a vengeance’ (redrafting it wrongly and hastily/with intense)

Advantages:

• Fills in the gap in the law
• Promotes the purpose of the Act
• Produces ‘just’ results

Disadvantages:

• Risk of judicial law-making. E.g: Royal College of Nursing v DHSS.
• Not as wide as the purposive approach.
• Limited to looking back to the law prior to the Act.
• Can make law uncertain.

Purposive Approach

Looks for the purpose of Parliament and interprets the law to ensure that purpose.

Cases using the purposive approach:

• R v Registrar-General, ex parte Smith (1990): Act stated an adopted person will obtain a birth certificate if he is 18 or above and makes the application in a correct manner. Smith applied when he had been convicted of murder and was detained. The court ruled that he could not get the information.
• R (Quintavalle) v Secretary of State (2003): Act stated embryo meant ‘a live human embryo where fertilisation is complete’. Embryos were created by cell nuclear replacement, so there was no fertilisation. Parliament could not have intended to distinguish between embryos, so the Act applied.

Advantages:

• Leads to justice in individual cases.
• Broad approach covering more situations. E.g: Whiteley v Chappell
• Allows for new technology. E.g: R (Quintavalle) v Secretary of State

Disadvantages:

• Leads to judicial law-making.
• Can make law uncertain.
• Difficult to discover the intention of Parliament.