In this report, I will be outlining what is meant by the three rule of statutory interpretation,
explaining the Purposive Approach as used by the European Court of Justice when
interpreting EU law, applying the rules using real life case as examples of statutory
interpretation, illustrating the role of judges in creating precedents and evaluating their use
of the rules of interpretation and finally discussing whether judges should make a law
themselves or whether they should just apply legislation.
The term statutory interpretation is the process whereby judges are called to make sense of
words of an Act of Parliament when there's is uncertainty in the meaning of the word. The
majority of the cases which are heard within House of Lords and The Court of Appeal involve
the interpretation of these Acts.
As mentioned earlier on, there are three main rules of interpretation which judges use to
help them understand statutes. These are the, literal rule; the golden rule and finally, the
mischief rule.
The literal rule is the rule which will give the words their plain, ordinary and dictionary
meaning. Over the years, the literal rule has been the main rule to statutory interpretation.
This is because the process was quick due to the fact that Judges would simply use a
dictionary to give words their ordinary meaning. However in recent times, there has been a
significant move away from this rule. This is because, it has been well known that the literal
has lead to many absurd answers (unreasonable or silly decisions) within cases.
An example of this would be the Whitely V Chappel case in 1868. This famous case involved,
the defendant pretending to impersonate their next door neighbour who had recently died
in order to use their vote in an election. A statute made it an offence to ‘impersonate any
individual entitled to vote.’ However the word in which the judge who was overhearing this
case found problematic was the word 'dead', therefore the accused was acquitted from all
charges as a dead person was clearly unable and not entitled to a vote.
Another famous case which can be related back to the literal would be the Cheeseman V
DPP case in 1990. This case involved the defendant (Mr. Cheeseman) indecently exposing
himself in some public toilets. This alerted the police as there had been numerous of
complaints about Mr. Cheeseman doing this previously. Therefore, two undercover police
officers decided to station themselves at the scene. However, as the decided to station
themselves there, they could not be classed as a passerby. This is because the dictionary
described a passenger as a passerby. Furthermore, as the statute made it an offence to
'show their genitals in a public place to the annoyance of passengers'. Therefore, the courts
found Cheeseman not guilty as the officers were classed as neither passengers or
passerby's.
Leading on from the literal rule, another main rule of interpretation which judges use to
help them understand statutes, is the golden rule. The golden rule was famously known as
explaining the Purposive Approach as used by the European Court of Justice when
interpreting EU law, applying the rules using real life case as examples of statutory
interpretation, illustrating the role of judges in creating precedents and evaluating their use
of the rules of interpretation and finally discussing whether judges should make a law
themselves or whether they should just apply legislation.
The term statutory interpretation is the process whereby judges are called to make sense of
words of an Act of Parliament when there's is uncertainty in the meaning of the word. The
majority of the cases which are heard within House of Lords and The Court of Appeal involve
the interpretation of these Acts.
As mentioned earlier on, there are three main rules of interpretation which judges use to
help them understand statutes. These are the, literal rule; the golden rule and finally, the
mischief rule.
The literal rule is the rule which will give the words their plain, ordinary and dictionary
meaning. Over the years, the literal rule has been the main rule to statutory interpretation.
This is because the process was quick due to the fact that Judges would simply use a
dictionary to give words their ordinary meaning. However in recent times, there has been a
significant move away from this rule. This is because, it has been well known that the literal
has lead to many absurd answers (unreasonable or silly decisions) within cases.
An example of this would be the Whitely V Chappel case in 1868. This famous case involved,
the defendant pretending to impersonate their next door neighbour who had recently died
in order to use their vote in an election. A statute made it an offence to ‘impersonate any
individual entitled to vote.’ However the word in which the judge who was overhearing this
case found problematic was the word 'dead', therefore the accused was acquitted from all
charges as a dead person was clearly unable and not entitled to a vote.
Another famous case which can be related back to the literal would be the Cheeseman V
DPP case in 1990. This case involved the defendant (Mr. Cheeseman) indecently exposing
himself in some public toilets. This alerted the police as there had been numerous of
complaints about Mr. Cheeseman doing this previously. Therefore, two undercover police
officers decided to station themselves at the scene. However, as the decided to station
themselves there, they could not be classed as a passerby. This is because the dictionary
described a passenger as a passerby. Furthermore, as the statute made it an offence to
'show their genitals in a public place to the annoyance of passengers'. Therefore, the courts
found Cheeseman not guilty as the officers were classed as neither passengers or
passerby's.
Leading on from the literal rule, another main rule of interpretation which judges use to
help them understand statutes, is the golden rule. The golden rule was famously known as
