Statutory Interpretation
- We need rules of statutory interpretation to find meaning
Which rule is used when
- No obligation on a judge to state which rule they’re using
- No policy or legislation which says which rule should be used when
- Sometimes law is interpreted without using any particular rule
Issues
- Need for interpretation of all language
- Importance of context
- Problems caused by the processes of legislative drafting
- European tradition
Issues of fact & issues of law
- Brutus v cozens 1972
- Energy conversion devices Incorporated’s applications 1982
Precedent & statutory interpretation
- Decisions on the meaning of ordinary words aren’t subject to the doctrine of
precedent, as they are questions of fact
- Decisions on the construction of statutes, being matters of law, may constitute
precedents, but won’t necessarily do so
- A case which decides the meaning of a specific form of statutory words can’t bind a
subsequent court unless it’s considering the same form of words in the same statute
Drafting legislation
- The task of parliamentary counsel
o To get the bill right
o To make the bill as intelligible as possible
‘The intelligibility of a bill is in inverse proportionate to its chance of
being right’
Sir john rowlatt
Literalism
- Words must be given their plain, ordinary & literal meaning
o If words are clear, they must be applied even though the intention of the
legislator may have been different & the result is harsh & undesirable
Simple & obvious approach but doesn’t always work
- Constitutional benefits
o Bourne v Norwich crematorium 1967
o Ag v prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover 1957
Golden rule
- Words should be given their plain, ordinary meaning so far as possible but only so far
as they don’t produce an absurd/ obnoxious result
- R v Allen 1872
The mischief rule
- The rule can only be used to interpret a statute which was intended to remedy a
defect in the common law
- Rule in Heydon’s case
o What was the common law before the act was passed
o What was the mischief & defect which the common law didn’t provide
- We need rules of statutory interpretation to find meaning
Which rule is used when
- No obligation on a judge to state which rule they’re using
- No policy or legislation which says which rule should be used when
- Sometimes law is interpreted without using any particular rule
Issues
- Need for interpretation of all language
- Importance of context
- Problems caused by the processes of legislative drafting
- European tradition
Issues of fact & issues of law
- Brutus v cozens 1972
- Energy conversion devices Incorporated’s applications 1982
Precedent & statutory interpretation
- Decisions on the meaning of ordinary words aren’t subject to the doctrine of
precedent, as they are questions of fact
- Decisions on the construction of statutes, being matters of law, may constitute
precedents, but won’t necessarily do so
- A case which decides the meaning of a specific form of statutory words can’t bind a
subsequent court unless it’s considering the same form of words in the same statute
Drafting legislation
- The task of parliamentary counsel
o To get the bill right
o To make the bill as intelligible as possible
‘The intelligibility of a bill is in inverse proportionate to its chance of
being right’
Sir john rowlatt
Literalism
- Words must be given their plain, ordinary & literal meaning
o If words are clear, they must be applied even though the intention of the
legislator may have been different & the result is harsh & undesirable
Simple & obvious approach but doesn’t always work
- Constitutional benefits
o Bourne v Norwich crematorium 1967
o Ag v prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover 1957
Golden rule
- Words should be given their plain, ordinary meaning so far as possible but only so far
as they don’t produce an absurd/ obnoxious result
- R v Allen 1872
The mischief rule
- The rule can only be used to interpret a statute which was intended to remedy a
defect in the common law
- Rule in Heydon’s case
o What was the common law before the act was passed
o What was the mischief & defect which the common law didn’t provide
