P5 M3 Muhammed Awais
Mrs Broadbent Masons & Co LTD
40 High town Road London SW1A 2AA
Bedfordshire
LU2 0JQ
Dear Mrs Broadbent,
I am writing to you, in reply of your previous enquiry with our law firm. Thank you for
contacting our law firm and we will do our best in resolving your case.
Statutory interpretation is different forms of interpretation when interpreting acts or statues. When interpretation
judges must follow the intention of parliament. There are several reasons why the meaning of statutes may be
unclear such as having vague or unclear definitions. There are 4 main rules of interpretation which I will explain
that may decide the outcome of the case.
Firstly Mrs Broadbent I will explain to you the literal rule. The literal rule is when the judges use the definitions
of the urban dictionary. The judges will take the meaning of what has been said literally. Ill now show you a
case example in which the literal rule was used. The case is Whitely V Chappell (1868), in the case the man had
used a name of a dead man when he had gone to vote. The statute has said it is an offence to personate any
person entitled to vote at an election. Due to the literal rule the defendant wasn’t found guilty as dead people are
not entitled to vote. So the man had no really impersonated anyone. However this shows that the literal rule can
lead to an absurd result. This is because the defendant still tried to be fraudulent. Mrs Broadbent if it was
applied to your case then for this rule you will be found Guilty as Section 2 of the Alcohol Act Sales 2010 says
that you cannot serve anything which can cause intoxication and even though you just sold grape juice this had
been turned into an alcoholic drink. Therefore unfortunately you will be found Guilty. But due to the absurd
outcome it is most likely that it may be taken to the golden rule.
Secondly Mrs Broadbent you may be judged using the golden rule, this is applied to a case so that it may
prevent an absurd result. In this rule the judges think that Parliament didn’t intend to cause the absurdity and
then will give the result which they think Parliament would’ve intended. Mrs Broadbent I will now give you a
case example where the golden rule was applied to avoid a dangerous outcome. The case is Re Sigsworth (1935)
in this case the defendant has killed his mother who was dying without an intestate. Meaning that the woman
was going to die without a will and the government has said it will go to the next kin and the defendant wanted
the money so he killed his mother. The statute says that the administration of estates act 1925, says the property
will be handed over to the next of kin. The court applied the golden rule to avoid getting an absurd result, they
did this by extending the meaning the words in the act. They did this so the people who commit the crimes will
be denied to inherit property. This case shows that an absurd rule was avoided. Mrs Broadbent under the golden
rule you will be found not guilty. This is because Section 2 of the Alcohol Sales Act 2010 stated causing
intoxication. But you had just sold the grape juice Mrs Broadbent, the grape juice isn’t the same as alcohol.
Therefore the judges will change the meaning of the act to without adding anything to beverage. For that
reason Mrs Broadbent you will be found Not Guilty under this rule as the girl had to add the yeast herself to
make it alcoholic.
Then Mrs Broadbent you may be judged by using the mischief rule, this is when judges look at what parliament
may have meant by there being ambiguity in the case. The meaning of this is that that may be very different
interpretations in the same case and then the judges will need to try and find out what the parliament had meant
by the act. Judges will look at what mischief it was and the remedy which parliament was trying to achieve by
creating the act. I will now give you a case example Mrs Broadbent of where the mischief rule was applied to a
case, this case is Smith V Hughes. The case of Smith V Hughes was about when women were soliciting from
the balconies or their windows so that they may be seen by the public. The statue stated that the street offences
act 1959 which made it illegal to solicit in a public place. The court which heard the case decided to apply the
mischief rule and found the women guilty as the women weren’t in a private place. The women were still in a
public place and the women were still soliciting the men. Mrs Broadbent under this act you will be found not
guilty. This is because the act of parliament was to regulate the sale and supply of Alcohol to under 18 years of
age. The intention of Parliament was not to stop the sales of juices. The mischief which parliament was trying to
Mrs Broadbent Masons & Co LTD
40 High town Road London SW1A 2AA
Bedfordshire
LU2 0JQ
Dear Mrs Broadbent,
I am writing to you, in reply of your previous enquiry with our law firm. Thank you for
contacting our law firm and we will do our best in resolving your case.
Statutory interpretation is different forms of interpretation when interpreting acts or statues. When interpretation
judges must follow the intention of parliament. There are several reasons why the meaning of statutes may be
unclear such as having vague or unclear definitions. There are 4 main rules of interpretation which I will explain
that may decide the outcome of the case.
Firstly Mrs Broadbent I will explain to you the literal rule. The literal rule is when the judges use the definitions
of the urban dictionary. The judges will take the meaning of what has been said literally. Ill now show you a
case example in which the literal rule was used. The case is Whitely V Chappell (1868), in the case the man had
used a name of a dead man when he had gone to vote. The statute has said it is an offence to personate any
person entitled to vote at an election. Due to the literal rule the defendant wasn’t found guilty as dead people are
not entitled to vote. So the man had no really impersonated anyone. However this shows that the literal rule can
lead to an absurd result. This is because the defendant still tried to be fraudulent. Mrs Broadbent if it was
applied to your case then for this rule you will be found Guilty as Section 2 of the Alcohol Act Sales 2010 says
that you cannot serve anything which can cause intoxication and even though you just sold grape juice this had
been turned into an alcoholic drink. Therefore unfortunately you will be found Guilty. But due to the absurd
outcome it is most likely that it may be taken to the golden rule.
Secondly Mrs Broadbent you may be judged using the golden rule, this is applied to a case so that it may
prevent an absurd result. In this rule the judges think that Parliament didn’t intend to cause the absurdity and
then will give the result which they think Parliament would’ve intended. Mrs Broadbent I will now give you a
case example where the golden rule was applied to avoid a dangerous outcome. The case is Re Sigsworth (1935)
in this case the defendant has killed his mother who was dying without an intestate. Meaning that the woman
was going to die without a will and the government has said it will go to the next kin and the defendant wanted
the money so he killed his mother. The statute says that the administration of estates act 1925, says the property
will be handed over to the next of kin. The court applied the golden rule to avoid getting an absurd result, they
did this by extending the meaning the words in the act. They did this so the people who commit the crimes will
be denied to inherit property. This case shows that an absurd rule was avoided. Mrs Broadbent under the golden
rule you will be found not guilty. This is because Section 2 of the Alcohol Sales Act 2010 stated causing
intoxication. But you had just sold the grape juice Mrs Broadbent, the grape juice isn’t the same as alcohol.
Therefore the judges will change the meaning of the act to without adding anything to beverage. For that
reason Mrs Broadbent you will be found Not Guilty under this rule as the girl had to add the yeast herself to
make it alcoholic.
Then Mrs Broadbent you may be judged by using the mischief rule, this is when judges look at what parliament
may have meant by there being ambiguity in the case. The meaning of this is that that may be very different
interpretations in the same case and then the judges will need to try and find out what the parliament had meant
by the act. Judges will look at what mischief it was and the remedy which parliament was trying to achieve by
creating the act. I will now give you a case example Mrs Broadbent of where the mischief rule was applied to a
case, this case is Smith V Hughes. The case of Smith V Hughes was about when women were soliciting from
the balconies or their windows so that they may be seen by the public. The statue stated that the street offences
act 1959 which made it illegal to solicit in a public place. The court which heard the case decided to apply the
mischief rule and found the women guilty as the women weren’t in a private place. The women were still in a
public place and the women were still soliciting the men. Mrs Broadbent under this act you will be found not
guilty. This is because the act of parliament was to regulate the sale and supply of Alcohol to under 18 years of
age. The intention of Parliament was not to stop the sales of juices. The mischief which parliament was trying to
