Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Statutory interpretation
When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less. The question is, said Alice, whether you can make words mean so many different things. The question is, said Humpty Dumpty, which is to be master - thats all.
Topic 4 Statutory interpretation Write down your understanding of the following words:
Ambiguous?
What does it mean?
Round?
What does it mean?
Question 4???? Was this the correct decision? Why? Reasons? What else could/should the courts have done?
Literal rule
The literal rule respects parliamentary sovereignty. The judges take the ordinary and natural meaning of the word and apply it, even if doing so creates an absurd result. Lord Esher said in 1892: The court has nothing to do with the question of whether the legislature has committed an absurdity.
Golden rule
The golden rule is an extension of the literal rule. If the literal rule gives an absurd result, which is obviously not what Parliament intended, the judge should alter the words in the statute in order to produce a satisfactory result. Judges may used the narrow approach or the broad approach.
Mischief rule
The mischief rule (or purposive approach) gives judges the most flexibility when deciding what mischief Parliament intended to stop. It was established in Heydons Case (1584). When using this rule, a judge should consider what the common law was before the Act was passed, what the problem was with that law, and what the remedy was that Parliament was trying to provide.
Task apply each of the rules of statutory interpretation to each of the above cases.
Re Sigsworth (1935)
Re Sigsworth (1935) is an example of the broad approach of the golden rule. A son had murdered his mother. The mother had not made a will, but in accord with rules set out in the Administration of Justice Act 1925 her next of kin would inherit (who was the son). There was no ambiguity in the wording of the Act, but the court was not prepared to let a murderer benefit from his crime. So it was held that the literal rule should not apply, the golden rule being used to prevent a repugnant situation.
R v Allen (1872)
R v Allen is an example of the narrow approach of the golden rule. The wording of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 had to be given a different interpretation for the crime of bigamy, because the way it was written meant that the crime could never be committed. The court used the golden rule and held that marry meant to go through a marriage ceremony.
Extra cases
Jones v Tower Boot Co Ltd (1997). The complainant suffered racial abuse at work, which he claimed amounted to racial discrimination for which the employers were liable under s32 of the Race Relations Act 1976. The CA applied the purposive approach and held that the acts of discrimination were committed in the course of employment. Any other interpretation ran counter to the whole legislative scheme and underlying policy of s32.
Corkery v Carpenter (1951). A person could be arrested if found drunk in charge of a carriage on the highway. The defendant had been arrested for being drunk in charge of a bicycle on the highway. The court held that a bicycle was a carriage for the purposes of the Act because the mischief aimed at was drunken persons on the highway in charge of some form of transport, and so the defendant was properly arrested.
Whiteley v Chappell (1868). The defendant pretended to be someone who had recently died in order to use that persons vote. It was an offence to personate any person entitled to vote. As dead people cannot vote, the defendant was held not to have committed an offence.
London & North Eastern Railway v Berriman (1946). The claimants husband was killed while oiling points along a railway line. Compensation was only payable if he had been relaying or repairing the line. The House of Lords held oiling points was maintaining the line and not relaying or repairing.
Golden Rule
Adler v George (1964). It was an offence to obstruct HM Forces in the vicinity of a prohibited place. The defendants had obstructed HM Forces in a prohibited place (an army base) and argued that they were not liable. The court found them guilty as in the vicinity of meant near or in the place.
TASK:
Why?
Intrinsic aids
Intrinsic aids are sources within the Act (internal aids). In order to determine the meaning of a section of an Act of Parliament, the judge may wish to look at other sections in the Act:
Extrinsic aids
Extrinsic aids are sources outside the Act (external aids). Examples include: dictionary Hansard Human Rights Act 1998 legal textbooks Interpretation Act 1978 explanatory notes
Presumptions
Judges make presumptions about the wording of a statute. They know that: the common law has not been changed unless the Act clearly states to the contrary a criminal offence requires mens rea (a guilty mind) the law should not act retrospectively
Tempest v Kilner)
noscitur a sociis (the express mention of one thing is the exclusion of another: Powell v Kempton Park Racecourse)
(a) Ejusdem generis (of the same kind) General words following particular words will be interpreted in the light of the particular ones. For example:
Powell v Kempton Park Racecourse (1899). It was an offence to use a house, office, room or other place for betting. The defendant was operating from a place outdoors. The court held that other place had to refer to other indoor places because the words in the list were indoor places and so he was not guilty.
(b) Noscitur a sociis (known from associates) A word will be interpreted in the context of surrounding words. For example:
Muir v Keay (1875). All houses kept open at night for public refreshment, resort and entertainment had to be licensed. The defendant argued that his caf did not need a licence because he did not provide entertainment. The court held that entertainment did not mean musical entertainment but the reception and accommodation of people, so the defendant was guilty.
Tempest v Kilner (1846). A statute required that contracts for the sale of goods, wares and merchandise of 10 or more had to be evidenced in writing. The court had to decide if this applied to a contract for the sale of stocks and shares. The court held that the statute did not apply because stocks and shares were not mentioned.