Stautory interpretation

The Literal Rule of Statutory Interpretation The literal rule of statutory interpretation should be the first rule applied by judges. Under the literal rule, the words of the statute are given their natural or ordinary meaning and applied without the judge seeking to put a gloss on the words or seek to make sense of the statute.

R v Harris (1836)

(NOSE BITE)

Whitely v Chappel (1868)

(VOTING FRAUD)

FISHER

BELL

( FLICK KNIFE )

The Golden Rule of Statutory Interpretation

The golden rule of statutory interpretation may be applied where an application of the literal rule would lead to an absurdity. The courts may then apply a secondary meaning.

R v Allen (1872)

(BIGAMY)

Adler v George

(OBSTRUCTION OF OFFICER )

Problems with the golden rule Judges are able to add or change the meaning of statutes and thereby become law makers infringing the separation of powers.

Judges have no power to intervene for pure injustice where there is no absurdity

Advantages of the golden rule

Errors in drafting can be corrected immediately eg:

R v Allen (1872) LR 1 CCR 367

Decisions are generally more in line with Parliament's intention Closes loopholes Often gives a more just result Brings common sense to the law

MISCHIEF RULE
The mischief rule of statutory interpretation is the oldest of the rules. The mischief rule was established inHeydon's Case [1584] In Re Sussex Peerage, it was held that the mischief ruleshould only be applied where there is ambiguity in the statute. Under the mischief rule the court's role is to suppress the mischief the Act is aimed at and advance the remedy

DPP v Bull [1995] (SOLICITNG)

PROBLEM Creates a crime after the event eg Smith v Hughes, Elliot v Grey thus infringing the rule of law Gives judges a law making role infringing the separation of powers. Judges can bring their own views, sense of morality and prejudices to a case eg Smith v Hughes, DPP v Bull. Advantages Closes loophole allows the law to develop and adapt to changing needs eg Royal College of Nursing v DHSS

The Purposive Approach

'The first task of a court of construction is to put itself in the shoes of the draftsman to consider what knowledge he had and, importantly, what statutory objective he had being thus placedthe court proceeds to ascertain the meaning of the statutory language.

Pepper v Hart [1992

The purposive approach has been highly influential and judges have applied it when interpreting domestic legislation which has no connection with EU law:

Advantages of the purposive approach

It is a flexible approach which allows judges to develop the law in line with Parliament's intention (eg Maunsell v Olins) It allows judges to cope with situations unforeseen by Parliament (eg Quintavalle) It allows the law to develop to cover advances in medical science (eg Quintavalle) Allowing reference to Hansard makes it easier for the courts to discover Parliament's intention (Pepper v Hart)

Disadvantages of the purposive approach

Judges are given too much power to develop the law and usurping the power of Parliament Judges become law makers infringing the Separation of Powers (Montesquieu) There is scope for judicial bias in deciding what Parliament intended It assumes Parliament has one intention and ignores the fact that Parliament is divided on party lines It allows the courts to give effect to EU Directives (Pickstone v Freemans) Allowing reference to Hansard may lead to prolonged examination of irrelevant material by lawyers which adds to the cost and length of litigation (See Lord Mackay in Pepper v Hart)