Statutory interpretation: Revision
Material With Answers 2024
Many Statutes are passed by Parliament each year. When drafting a new law the aim is
to make the meaning of words clear and explicit so that they are not ambiguous or open
to interpretation. This helps to ensure the intention of Parliament is achieved and
Parliamentary Supremacy is upheld.
In order to help with understanding an Act can have an interpretation section defining
the meaning of certain words. A good example is the Theft Act 1968. Section 1 sets out
the definition of Theft as "dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another with
the intention to permanently deprive". Sections 2-6 then define key words and phrases:
S2 dishonesty, S3 appropriate, S4 property, S5 belonging to another and S6 intention to
permanently deprive. [more on this later]
To help judges with the meaning of general words the Interpretation Act 1978 makes
clear that unless it is stated to the contrary "he" includes "she" an - Answer - Why is it
necessary for judges to interpret the law?:
As a result of Judges being unable to agree on which approach to take when
interpreting an Act they have developed three different rules of interpretation *Literal
Rule, *Golden Rule,
*Mischief Rule.
These rules take different approaches to interpretation and some judges prefer to use
one rule, whereas others will prefer another. This means that the interpretation of a
statute may differ according to which judge is hearing the case and which rule they are
using. However, once an interpretation has been laid down, it may then form a binding
precedent which must be followed in future cases. It is important therefore that judges
use the rules to produce a result that is just and fair and creates certainty. - Answer -
Rules:
The Literal Rule gives all the words in the statute their ordinary, everyday or literal
meaning, even if the result is absurd or ridiculous. Lord Esher stated in R v Judge of
City of London Court: "If the words of an Act are clear, you must follow them, even
though they lead to a manifest absurdity. The court has nothing to do with the question
of whether legislature has committed an absurdity". The rule developed in the early 19th
century and was the main rule used until the mid-20th century. It is still used as the
starting point for interpretation.
Examples of use of the Literal Rule are:
•Whiteley v Chappell: A statute aimed at preventing electoral malpractice made it an
offence to impersonate "any person entitled to vote" at an election. D was acquitted
because he impersonated a dead person and a dead person was clearly not entitled to
vote!
•Using the literal rule in this case resulted in an absurd decis - Answer - Literal rule:
, Statutory interpretation: Revision
Material With Answers 2024
•The rule follows the exact words Parliament has used so it respects Parliamentary
Supremacy.
•Prevents unelected judges making laws and instead leaves law-making to elected
MP's. Viscount Simonds in Magor and St Mellons RDC v Newport Corporation argued it
was not open to judges to fill the gaps in statutes or alter them. Instead it should be
done by Parliament passing a new Act.
•Using the literal rule makes the law more certain, as it will be interpreted exactly as it
was written. This means less scope for interpretation and challenges in court cases.
•It can lead to quick decisions as the answer can be easily found in a dictionary rather
then it requiring detailed and lengthy research. - Answer - Advantages of Literal Rule:
•Following the words exactly can lead to unfair or unjust decisions; London and North
Eastern Railway Co v Berriman.
•Words may have more then one meaning, making it difficult to apply a dictionary
definition as there is more then one to choose from.
•Not always possible to word an Act so that it covers every situation. This may mean the
Act does not have the effect that Parliament intended; Whiteley v Chappel.
•Gives judges little discretion to adapt the law to changing times and social attitudes,
meaning that we could be stuck with outdated laws until Parliament find the time to
update them.
•Michael Zander (a legal academic) says that the rule "is mechanical and divorced from
the realities of the use of language". The outcomes in the Berriman case and Whiteley v
Chappell would both support this view.
•Law Commission in 1969 pointed out that an interpretation based only on literal
meanings "assumes unattaina - Answer - Disadvantages of Literal rule:
The Golden Rule modifies the literal rule and allows the court to avoid a literal
interpretation if it would lead to an absurd result. The court is allowed to choose
between various possible meanings of a word or phrase in order to interpret the law to
provide the best possible outcome. The rule can also be used where the words have
only one meaning but that meaning would lead to a bad situation. The courts would use
the golden rule to modify the words of the statute in order to avoid this problem.
There are two views on regarding when the golden rule should be used:
•The first is very narrow and is illustrated by Lord Reid in Jones v DPP: "It is a cardinal
principle applicable to all kinds of statutes that you may not for any reason attach to a
statutory provision a meaning which the words of that provision cannot reasonably bear.
If they are capable of more than one meaning, then you can choose between those
mean - Answer - Golden Rule:
• Golden Rule can prevent the absurdity and injustice caused by the literal rule, and
help the courts put into practice what Parliament really means. Where there is a
problem with the literal rule, the golden rule provides an "escape route" to fix the
problem. For example, in Re Sigsworth the rule changed the application of the law in an
exceptional case to avoid a morally and legally repugnant result.
Material With Answers 2024
Many Statutes are passed by Parliament each year. When drafting a new law the aim is
to make the meaning of words clear and explicit so that they are not ambiguous or open
to interpretation. This helps to ensure the intention of Parliament is achieved and
Parliamentary Supremacy is upheld.
In order to help with understanding an Act can have an interpretation section defining
the meaning of certain words. A good example is the Theft Act 1968. Section 1 sets out
the definition of Theft as "dishonestly appropriating property belonging to another with
the intention to permanently deprive". Sections 2-6 then define key words and phrases:
S2 dishonesty, S3 appropriate, S4 property, S5 belonging to another and S6 intention to
permanently deprive. [more on this later]
To help judges with the meaning of general words the Interpretation Act 1978 makes
clear that unless it is stated to the contrary "he" includes "she" an - Answer - Why is it
necessary for judges to interpret the law?:
As a result of Judges being unable to agree on which approach to take when
interpreting an Act they have developed three different rules of interpretation *Literal
Rule, *Golden Rule,
*Mischief Rule.
These rules take different approaches to interpretation and some judges prefer to use
one rule, whereas others will prefer another. This means that the interpretation of a
statute may differ according to which judge is hearing the case and which rule they are
using. However, once an interpretation has been laid down, it may then form a binding
precedent which must be followed in future cases. It is important therefore that judges
use the rules to produce a result that is just and fair and creates certainty. - Answer -
Rules:
The Literal Rule gives all the words in the statute their ordinary, everyday or literal
meaning, even if the result is absurd or ridiculous. Lord Esher stated in R v Judge of
City of London Court: "If the words of an Act are clear, you must follow them, even
though they lead to a manifest absurdity. The court has nothing to do with the question
of whether legislature has committed an absurdity". The rule developed in the early 19th
century and was the main rule used until the mid-20th century. It is still used as the
starting point for interpretation.
Examples of use of the Literal Rule are:
•Whiteley v Chappell: A statute aimed at preventing electoral malpractice made it an
offence to impersonate "any person entitled to vote" at an election. D was acquitted
because he impersonated a dead person and a dead person was clearly not entitled to
vote!
•Using the literal rule in this case resulted in an absurd decis - Answer - Literal rule:
, Statutory interpretation: Revision
Material With Answers 2024
•The rule follows the exact words Parliament has used so it respects Parliamentary
Supremacy.
•Prevents unelected judges making laws and instead leaves law-making to elected
MP's. Viscount Simonds in Magor and St Mellons RDC v Newport Corporation argued it
was not open to judges to fill the gaps in statutes or alter them. Instead it should be
done by Parliament passing a new Act.
•Using the literal rule makes the law more certain, as it will be interpreted exactly as it
was written. This means less scope for interpretation and challenges in court cases.
•It can lead to quick decisions as the answer can be easily found in a dictionary rather
then it requiring detailed and lengthy research. - Answer - Advantages of Literal Rule:
•Following the words exactly can lead to unfair or unjust decisions; London and North
Eastern Railway Co v Berriman.
•Words may have more then one meaning, making it difficult to apply a dictionary
definition as there is more then one to choose from.
•Not always possible to word an Act so that it covers every situation. This may mean the
Act does not have the effect that Parliament intended; Whiteley v Chappel.
•Gives judges little discretion to adapt the law to changing times and social attitudes,
meaning that we could be stuck with outdated laws until Parliament find the time to
update them.
•Michael Zander (a legal academic) says that the rule "is mechanical and divorced from
the realities of the use of language". The outcomes in the Berriman case and Whiteley v
Chappell would both support this view.
•Law Commission in 1969 pointed out that an interpretation based only on literal
meanings "assumes unattaina - Answer - Disadvantages of Literal rule:
The Golden Rule modifies the literal rule and allows the court to avoid a literal
interpretation if it would lead to an absurd result. The court is allowed to choose
between various possible meanings of a word or phrase in order to interpret the law to
provide the best possible outcome. The rule can also be used where the words have
only one meaning but that meaning would lead to a bad situation. The courts would use
the golden rule to modify the words of the statute in order to avoid this problem.
There are two views on regarding when the golden rule should be used:
•The first is very narrow and is illustrated by Lord Reid in Jones v DPP: "It is a cardinal
principle applicable to all kinds of statutes that you may not for any reason attach to a
statutory provision a meaning which the words of that provision cannot reasonably bear.
If they are capable of more than one meaning, then you can choose between those
mean - Answer - Golden Rule:
• Golden Rule can prevent the absurdity and injustice caused by the literal rule, and
help the courts put into practice what Parliament really means. Where there is a
problem with the literal rule, the golden rule provides an "escape route" to fix the
problem. For example, in Re Sigsworth the rule changed the application of the law in an
exceptional case to avoid a morally and legally repugnant result.
