Statutory Interpretation
The need for Statutory interpretation:
o A broad term – There are words designed to cover several meaning , for example the
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 says “any dog of the type known as pit bull terrier”. Did
the word ‘type’ mean the same as ‘breed’? it was decided by the Queen’s Bench
Division that it covered the dogs that had a number of the characteristics of such
dogs.
o Ambiguity – where a word has more than one meaning, making it unclear as to
which meaning should be used eg “light”.
o Drafting error – the draftsman who prepared the Bill could have made an error that
wasn’t noticed by Parliament or if the Bill was amended several times.
o Changes in science/technology – new developments mean that an old Act doesn’t
cover present day situations for example in the case of Royal College of Nursing v
DHSS (1981) where medical science had changed since the passing of the Abortion
Act 1967.
o Changes in the use of language- meaning of words have changed over time eg. the
word “gay” used to mean “happy”.
The Literal Rule:
It was the first rule used in the first part of the 20th century. The idea was expressed by Lord
Esher in 1892. It means that the words within the statute are given their plain, ordinary
meaning even when this would result in an absurd/harsh decision. This because Parliament
is supreme in law-making and it’s not up to the judges to change that which the Parliament
has produced.
Cases:
Whiteley v Chappell (1868) R v Maginnis (1987)
The defendant was charged under a Under section 5 of the Misuse of Drugs
section that made it an offence to Act 1971 the defendant was charged
impersonate “any person entitled to for being in the possession of £500
vote”. The defendant had pretended worth of cannabis with the intent to
to be someone whose name was on supply it. Defendant claimed that the
the voting register but was dead. The drug was his friend’s who was going to
court acquitted him as a dead person pick it up later. The court found him
is not literally “entitled to vote”. This guilty since handing it back is a act of
is an example of an absurd decision. supplying.
LNER v Berriman (1946)
A railway worker was killed while doing maintenance
work. His widow wanted to claim compensation since
under the Fatal Accidents Act a lookout should have
been provided for the “purpose of relaying and
repairing”. The court failed the claim since oiling was
seen as “maintenance” instead of “repair and relay”.
This is an example of a harsh result.
, Evaluation of the Literal Rule:
Advantages: Disadvantages:
• The rule follows the words that the • The rule assumes every Act is perfectly
democratically elected Parliament has drafted, but it’s not possible to word an
used. Act so that it covers every situation.
• It prevents unelected judges from • Words in the Act may have more than
making law. one meaning, so the Act is unclear.
• Makes the law more certain and easier • Often dictionary words are defined with
for judges to apply it. several meaning.
• There is no place for judge’s bias and • Can lead to unfair and absurd decisions.
prejudices to interfere. • Can create loopholes in the law.
• It respects Parliamentary sovereignty.
The Golden Rule :
The judge can choose to depart from the literal rule when:
▪ The rule would create an absurd/harsh decision (wide approach)
▪ A word has more than one meaning (narrow approach)
The judge can choose the most common sense interpretation that will produce the most
just result.
Cases:
Re v Sigsworth (1935) (wide approach) R v Allen (1872) (narrow approach)
The defendant had murdered his mother. Under the Persons Act 1861, the
However the victim had not made a will, defendant was charged with the offence
therefore under the Administration of of bigamy (marrying more than once). If a
Justice Act 1925 her estate went to her literal interpretation was used it would
next of kin so her son (the defendant). mean that the offence was impossible to
The court was not prepared to allow a commit since civil law does not recognise
murderer to benefit from his crime so a second marriage. Therefore the golden
they ignored the literal rule and applied rule was applied and the defendant’s
the golden rule. conviction was upheld.
Adler v George (1964)
The Official Secrets Act 1920 stated that it was an offence to cause an
obstruction to her Majesty’s Forces “in the vicinity” of a prohibited place.
Defendant argued that the literal meaning of “vicinity” is outside or close
by. The court found it ridiculous if someone who caused an obstruction
outside was guilty, but someone doing it inside wasn’t, so they found
defendant guilty.
The need for Statutory interpretation:
o A broad term – There are words designed to cover several meaning , for example the
Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 says “any dog of the type known as pit bull terrier”. Did
the word ‘type’ mean the same as ‘breed’? it was decided by the Queen’s Bench
Division that it covered the dogs that had a number of the characteristics of such
dogs.
o Ambiguity – where a word has more than one meaning, making it unclear as to
which meaning should be used eg “light”.
o Drafting error – the draftsman who prepared the Bill could have made an error that
wasn’t noticed by Parliament or if the Bill was amended several times.
o Changes in science/technology – new developments mean that an old Act doesn’t
cover present day situations for example in the case of Royal College of Nursing v
DHSS (1981) where medical science had changed since the passing of the Abortion
Act 1967.
o Changes in the use of language- meaning of words have changed over time eg. the
word “gay” used to mean “happy”.
The Literal Rule:
It was the first rule used in the first part of the 20th century. The idea was expressed by Lord
Esher in 1892. It means that the words within the statute are given their plain, ordinary
meaning even when this would result in an absurd/harsh decision. This because Parliament
is supreme in law-making and it’s not up to the judges to change that which the Parliament
has produced.
Cases:
Whiteley v Chappell (1868) R v Maginnis (1987)
The defendant was charged under a Under section 5 of the Misuse of Drugs
section that made it an offence to Act 1971 the defendant was charged
impersonate “any person entitled to for being in the possession of £500
vote”. The defendant had pretended worth of cannabis with the intent to
to be someone whose name was on supply it. Defendant claimed that the
the voting register but was dead. The drug was his friend’s who was going to
court acquitted him as a dead person pick it up later. The court found him
is not literally “entitled to vote”. This guilty since handing it back is a act of
is an example of an absurd decision. supplying.
LNER v Berriman (1946)
A railway worker was killed while doing maintenance
work. His widow wanted to claim compensation since
under the Fatal Accidents Act a lookout should have
been provided for the “purpose of relaying and
repairing”. The court failed the claim since oiling was
seen as “maintenance” instead of “repair and relay”.
This is an example of a harsh result.
, Evaluation of the Literal Rule:
Advantages: Disadvantages:
• The rule follows the words that the • The rule assumes every Act is perfectly
democratically elected Parliament has drafted, but it’s not possible to word an
used. Act so that it covers every situation.
• It prevents unelected judges from • Words in the Act may have more than
making law. one meaning, so the Act is unclear.
• Makes the law more certain and easier • Often dictionary words are defined with
for judges to apply it. several meaning.
• There is no place for judge’s bias and • Can lead to unfair and absurd decisions.
prejudices to interfere. • Can create loopholes in the law.
• It respects Parliamentary sovereignty.
The Golden Rule :
The judge can choose to depart from the literal rule when:
▪ The rule would create an absurd/harsh decision (wide approach)
▪ A word has more than one meaning (narrow approach)
The judge can choose the most common sense interpretation that will produce the most
just result.
Cases:
Re v Sigsworth (1935) (wide approach) R v Allen (1872) (narrow approach)
The defendant had murdered his mother. Under the Persons Act 1861, the
However the victim had not made a will, defendant was charged with the offence
therefore under the Administration of of bigamy (marrying more than once). If a
Justice Act 1925 her estate went to her literal interpretation was used it would
next of kin so her son (the defendant). mean that the offence was impossible to
The court was not prepared to allow a commit since civil law does not recognise
murderer to benefit from his crime so a second marriage. Therefore the golden
they ignored the literal rule and applied rule was applied and the defendant’s
the golden rule. conviction was upheld.
Adler v George (1964)
The Official Secrets Act 1920 stated that it was an offence to cause an
obstruction to her Majesty’s Forces “in the vicinity” of a prohibited place.
Defendant argued that the literal meaning of “vicinity” is outside or close
by. The court found it ridiculous if someone who caused an obstruction
outside was guilty, but someone doing it inside wasn’t, so they found
defendant guilty.
