James Osborne
In this assignment, I will write a report to show what I know about statutory
interpretation and how judges decide how they will interpret and apply such laws in
court.
Statutory interpretation means to make sense of words when there is an issue with
their meaning. There are three rules of statutory interpretation. These are: Literal
Rule, Golden Rule, and Mischief Rule.
The Literal Rule is when law related words are given their meaning in their natural or
ordinary form. Also, these law related words are applied by a judge without looking to
put emphasis on the words or try and make sense of the statute. However, more
recently this rule is being used less because the results are sometimes absurd and
harsh.
An example of when the literal rule has been used is with the Whitely V Chappell
(1868) case. This was when the defendant in the case decided that they wanted to
use someone’s vote who had recently died, so they pretended to be that person. The
law stated that it was illegal to personate ‘any person entitled to vote.’ However, as
the person was dead and dead people can’t vote, the verdict was that the defendant
wasn’t guilty because they had not committed a crime due to the fact they had just
used someone’s name who was dead. The reason the judge interpreted the law with
the literal rule is because although it is illegal to impersonate ‘any person entitled to
vote’, a ‘dead’ person is not entitled to vote because they are not living.
Another example of a case where the literal rule was used is with the Cheeseman V
DPP (1990) case. This was when two Police officers saw a man playing with his
person in a public toilet (masturbating). The Town Police Clauses Act (1847) made it
illegal for any persons to do this while there are “passengers” around in the street
(the street was defined by Act as any public place). Therefore, the judge used this
rule to interpret the law and decided that “passengers” had to be using the street for
purposes that were ordinary. But because the “passengers” in this case were the
Police, this meant they were using the street for a special purpose. Thus, the
defendant was not guilty.
The Golden Rule is where the literal rule is used first, but if a there is a silly result,
then the golden rule can be used to ignore it. This is because it helps to stay clear of
absurd (silly) decisions. This rule proved to be quite popular and more judges started
using it. The reason the rule was developed is because some judges recommended
that a court should leave the literal meaning of a word in a case where it would lead
to absurdity.
An example of a case where the golden rule has been used is with the R v Allen
(1872) case. This was where the defendant was convicted of ‘Bigamy’ (the offence of
marrying someone else when already married) under the Offences Against the
Person Act 1861. The judge held that it was not possible for a person to get married
twice. However, it was possible for a person to go through a marriage ceremony
more than once but this meant that they could not be ‘legally’ married twice. The
judge also held that ‘shall marry’ should be interpreted as a second meaning to ‘shall
go through a marriage ceremony’. Therefore, the defendant was convicted of
Bigamy.
In this assignment, I will write a report to show what I know about statutory
interpretation and how judges decide how they will interpret and apply such laws in
court.
Statutory interpretation means to make sense of words when there is an issue with
their meaning. There are three rules of statutory interpretation. These are: Literal
Rule, Golden Rule, and Mischief Rule.
The Literal Rule is when law related words are given their meaning in their natural or
ordinary form. Also, these law related words are applied by a judge without looking to
put emphasis on the words or try and make sense of the statute. However, more
recently this rule is being used less because the results are sometimes absurd and
harsh.
An example of when the literal rule has been used is with the Whitely V Chappell
(1868) case. This was when the defendant in the case decided that they wanted to
use someone’s vote who had recently died, so they pretended to be that person. The
law stated that it was illegal to personate ‘any person entitled to vote.’ However, as
the person was dead and dead people can’t vote, the verdict was that the defendant
wasn’t guilty because they had not committed a crime due to the fact they had just
used someone’s name who was dead. The reason the judge interpreted the law with
the literal rule is because although it is illegal to impersonate ‘any person entitled to
vote’, a ‘dead’ person is not entitled to vote because they are not living.
Another example of a case where the literal rule was used is with the Cheeseman V
DPP (1990) case. This was when two Police officers saw a man playing with his
person in a public toilet (masturbating). The Town Police Clauses Act (1847) made it
illegal for any persons to do this while there are “passengers” around in the street
(the street was defined by Act as any public place). Therefore, the judge used this
rule to interpret the law and decided that “passengers” had to be using the street for
purposes that were ordinary. But because the “passengers” in this case were the
Police, this meant they were using the street for a special purpose. Thus, the
defendant was not guilty.
The Golden Rule is where the literal rule is used first, but if a there is a silly result,
then the golden rule can be used to ignore it. This is because it helps to stay clear of
absurd (silly) decisions. This rule proved to be quite popular and more judges started
using it. The reason the rule was developed is because some judges recommended
that a court should leave the literal meaning of a word in a case where it would lead
to absurdity.
An example of a case where the golden rule has been used is with the R v Allen
(1872) case. This was where the defendant was convicted of ‘Bigamy’ (the offence of
marrying someone else when already married) under the Offences Against the
Person Act 1861. The judge held that it was not possible for a person to get married
twice. However, it was possible for a person to go through a marriage ceremony
more than once but this meant that they could not be ‘legally’ married twice. The
judge also held that ‘shall marry’ should be interpreted as a second meaning to ‘shall
go through a marriage ceremony’. Therefore, the defendant was convicted of
Bigamy.
