STATUTORY INTERPRETATION

1
Topic 4
Statutory interpretation
2
When I use a word, Humpty Dumpty said, in a
rather scornful tone, it means just what I
choose it to mean - neither more nor less. The
question is, said Alice, whether you can make
words mean so many different things. The
question is, said Humpty Dumpty, which is to be
master - thats all. Humpty Dumpty in Lewis
Carroll, Through the Looking Glass.
3

• Write down your understanding of the following
  words
• Ambiguous?
• What does it mean?
• Round?
• What does it mean?

4

• Did you know?
• Of the 500 most-used words in the English
  language, each has, on average, 23 different
  meanings
• The word round has 70 different meanings!

5
Introduction to statutory interpretation
Many statutes are passed by Parliament each year.
The meaning of the law in these statutes should
be clear and explicit but this is not always
achieved Statutory interpretation concerns the
role of judges when trying to apply an Act of
Parliament to an actual case. The wording of the
Act may seem to be clear when it is drafted and
checked by Parliament, but it may become
problematic in the future.
6
The courts must uphold the will of Parliament
and not try to usurp its powers, but sometimes it
necessary to try and understand what the words
used by the parliamentary draftsman mean.
The rules of interpretation

• There are two approaches to statutory
  interpretation the literal approach and the
  purposive approach.
• There are also three main rules of statutory
  interpretation that judges use to decide a case
• the literal rule
• the golden rule
• the mischief rule

7

• TASK
• Cheeseman v Director of Public Prosecutions
  (1990)
• Question 4????
• Was this the correct decision?
• Why? Reasons?
• What else could/should the courts have done?

8
Literal Approach versus Purposive Approach The
case of Cheeseman illustrates several of the
problems of stautory interpretation. It is an
example of the courts taking the words
literally. However, it can be argued that the
defendant was wilfully and indecently exposing
his person in a street and that he was caught
doing that. Is it important that the police
officers were passengers? Some people would
argue that the whole purpose of the Act was to
prevent this type of behaviour this is the
purposive approach to statutory interpretation
instead at looking at the precise meaning of each
word, a broader approach is taken
9

• This conflict between the literal approach and
  the purposive approach is one of the major issues
  in statutory interpretation. Should judges
  examine each word and take the words literally or
  should it be accepted that an Act of Parliament
  cannot cover every situation and that the
  meanings of words cannot always be exact?
• In European law the purposive approach is taken.
• In English law the judges have not been able to
  agree on which approach should be used, but
  instead, over the years they have developed three
  different rules of interpretation. These are the
• Literal rule
• Golden rule
• Mischief rule

10
Literal rule
The literal rule respects parliamentary
sovereignty. The judges take the ordinary and
natural meaning of the word and apply it, even if
doing so creates an absurd result. Lord Esher
said in 1892 The court has nothing to do with
the question of whether the legislature has
committed an absurdity.
11
Golden rule
The golden rule is an extension of the literal
rule. If the literal rule gives an absurd result,
which is obviously not what Parliament intended,
the judge should alter the words in the statute
in order to produce a satisfactory result. Judges
may used the narrow approach or the broad
approach.
12
Mischief rule
The mischief rule (or purposive approach) gives
judges the most flexibility when deciding what
mischief Parliament intended to stop. It was
established in Heydons Case (1584). When using
this rule, a judge should consider what the
common law was before the Act was passed, what
the problem was with that law, and what the
remedy was that Parliament was trying to provide.
13
Smith v Hughes 1960. Section 1(1) of the Street
Offences Act 1959 said "it shall be an offence
for a common prostitute to loiter or solicit in a
street or public place for the purposes of
prostitution." The court considered appeals by
six different women who had been on a balcony or
at the windows of ground floor rooms. In each
case, the women were attracting men by calling to
them or tapping on a window. They argued they
were not guilty since they were not in the
street. Re Sigsworth (1935). A son had murdered
his mother. The mother had not made a will, but
in accord with rules set out in the
Administration of Justice Act 1925 her next of
kin would inherit (who was the son). Fisher v
Bell 1960 A shopkeeper displayed a flick-knife
in his window. The Restriction of Offensive
Weapons Act 1959 made it an offence to offer such
a knife for sale. The defendant argued that a
display of anything in a show window is simply an
offer to treat and this means that, under
contract law, it is the customer who makes the
offer to buy the knife. Task apply each of the
rules of statutory interpretation to each of the
above cases.
14
Fisher v Bell (1961)
This case concerned a flick knife displayed in a
shop window. Lord Parker acquitted Bell under
the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959,
even though it was obvious that this was exactly
the sort of behaviour that Parliament intended to
stop. He justified his decision because the
draftsmen knew the legal term invitation to
treat (which would have been applicable in this
case) but failed to include it.To respect
Parliaments sovereignty he had to infer that
they had left it out on purpose.
15
Smith v Hughes (1960)
The defendants were charged with soliciting in a
street or public place for the purposes of
prostitution contrary to the Street Offences Act
1959. They were soliciting from upstairs
windows. Lord Parker used the mischief rule to
convict, as he believed that the mischief that
Parliament had intended to stop was people in the
street being bothered by prostitutes.
16
Re Sigsworth (1935) Re Sigsworth (1935) is an
example of the broad approach of the golden
rule. A son had murdered his mother. The mother
had not made a will, but in accord with rules set
out in the Administration of Justice Act 1925 her
next of kin would inherit (who was the son).
There was no ambiguity in the wording of the
Act, but the court was not prepared to let a
murderer benefit from his crime. So it was held
that the literal rule should not apply, the
golden rule being used to prevent a repugnant
situation.
17
R v Allen (1872)
R v Allen is an example of the narrow approach of
the golden rule. The wording of the Offences
Against the Person Act 1861 had to be given a
different interpretation for the crime of bigamy,
because the way it was written meant that the
crime could never be committed. The court used
the golden rule and held that marry meant to
go through a marriage ceremony.
18

• TASK
• Which of the three approaches to statutory
  approach do you think is best?
• Why?

19
Other aids to interpretation

• intrinsic aids
• extrinsic aids
• presumptions
• Latin rules of language

20
Intrinsic aids

• Intrinsic aids are sources within the Act
  (internal aids).
• In order to determine the meaning of a section of
  an Act of Parliament, the judge may wish to look
  at other sections in the Act
• definition section
• long and short title
• preamble

21
Extrinsic aids

• Extrinsic aids are sources outside the Act
  (external aids). Examples include
• dictionary
• Hansard
• Human Rights Act 1998
• legal textbooks
• Interpretation Act 1978
• explanatory notes

22
Presumptions

• Judges make presumptions about the wording of a
  statute. They know that
• the common law has not been changed unless the
  Act
• clearly states to the contrary
• a criminal offence requires mens rea (a guilty
  mind)
• the law should not act retrospectively

23
Latin rules of language

• There are also Latin rules of language that aid
  interpretation
• ejusdem generis (Beswick v Beswick)
• expressio unius est exclusio alterius (Tempest v
  
• Kilner)
• noscitur a sociis (Powell v Kempton Park
  Racecourse)