Scribd
Upload
15 views

Lecture 6 - Statutory Interpretation

Uploaded by

alyshabains2
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
15 views

Lecture 6 - Statutory Interpretation

Uploaded by

alyshabains2
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 19

Legal Systems

Lecture
Statutory Interpretation
Aims and Objectives
• In today’s lecture, we will be covering:
• The presumptions of interpretation
• The aids to interpretation
• The rules of interpretation

• Objectives
• By the end of this lecture, you should be able to:
• Identify the different aids and presumptions to statutory interpretation
• Explain the rules of statutory interpretation
• Analyse the way in which judges use the rules to interpret statute
What is Statutory Interpretation
• A process by which judges apply and interpret legislation when hearing
cases.

• Court’s role is to interpret and give effect to the intention of Parliament

• This is necessary because:


• Legislation may be badly written
• Words or phrases in legislation may be ambiguous
• Often legislation is out of date and not suited to the modern social setting
What are the rules that aid statutory
interpretation

The rules are found in statute and common law as


follows:

• Statutory Rules
• Presumptions
• Extrinsic and Intrinsic Aids
• Common Law Rules
• Rules of language
• Rules of Interpretation
Statutory Rules

The Interpretation Act 1978 says:


• Masculine applies to feminine unless stated otherwise.
• Singular includes plural unless stated otherwise.
• ‘Person’ applies to organisations unless stated otherwise .
Presumptions
• Statute does not change common law unless it says so
• Criminal offences need proof of mens rea
• The law is not normally retrospective – it is prospective
• Statute do not bind the Crown.
• Statutes are always speaking

Presumptions in law are rebuttable


Extrinsic Aids to Interpretation

• The Oxford English Dictionary


• Law Commission Reports
• The Interpretation Act 1978
• Other Acts of Parliament
• Hansard?
Hansard as an Extrinsic Aid
• Hansard – Official reports of parliamentary debate

• Previously could not be used in interpreting statues


• Davis v Johnson (1978)

• Now can be used to give light to general purpose


• Pepper v Hart
• Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (1996)

• Can only use statements made by the Minister who proposed the bill
Internal Aids to Interpretation
• The Short and Long Title
• Side or marginal notes
• The preamble
• Explanatory notes
• Schedules at the end
• The Rules of Language
• Ejusdem generis
• Experssio unis est exclusio alterius
• Nosciur a sociis
The Rules of Language

• Ejusdem Generis Rule: means “of the same type”. Used when a list of specific words
includes a general word, this is to be read in light of the specific words.
• i.e. “Cows, pigs, sheep and other animals”

• Massey and Another v Boulden and Another [2003] 1 WLR 1792


The Rules of Language

• Expressio unius exclusio alterius rule: Express mention of one word excludes all
others. Used where words are very specific.
• i.e. “Rottweilers are banned from entering the park”

• Galinski v McHugh (1989) P & CR 359


• R v Inhabitants of Sedgley (1831) 2 B & Ad 65
The Rules of Language

• Noscitur a sociis rule: a word must be read in the context that it appears. The word
draws meaning from the words around it.
• Viscount Simmons said in AG v Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover [1957] AC 436
• “… words particularly general words, cannot be read in isolation: their colour and content are derived
from their context”
• i.e. “No dog toys, dogs beds or food shall be taxed”

• Pengelley v Bell Punch Co Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 1055


The Judges Rules of Interpretation
These rules have been created by judges as ways of helping them to
understand the meaning and intention of Acts of Parliament.

• The Literal Rule


• The Golden Rule
• The Mischief Rule
• The Purposive Rule.
The Literal Rule
Words are given their ordinary, literal meaning, even if the outcome
is absurd or repugnant:

• Duport Steels Ltd v Sirs [1980] 1 WLR 142, 157


• “the role of the judiciary is confined to ascertaining from the words that
Parliament has approved as expressing its intention what that intention was
and to give effect to it”

• Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394


The Golden Rule
Words are given their ordinary literal meaning unless the
outcome is absurd or repugnant, in which case they will give a
more suitable interpretation;

• Grey v Pearson (1857) 6 HL Cas 61


“the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words is to be adhered to, unless that would lead to some
absurdity, or some repugnance or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument, in which case the
grammatical and ordinary sense of the words may be modified, so as to avoid that absurdity and
inconsistency, but no farther.”

• Adler v George [1964]2 QB 7


The Mischief Rule

The courts interpret an Act in the way most likely to solve its mischief.

• Heydon’s Case (1854) 3 Co Rep 7a


• What was the law before the statute was passed?
• What problem/mischief was the statute trying to remedy?
• What remedy was Parliament trying to provide?

• Smith v Hughes [1960] 1 WLR 830


The Purposive Approach

European approach to interpretation giving effect to the purpose of a


statute
• A modern day extension of the Mischief Rule.
• Less attention paid to the letter of the law

• Magor and St. Mellons Rural District Council v Newport Corporation [1952] A.C.189
• “It appears to me to be a naked usurpation of the legislative function under the thin disguise of
interpretation. and it is the less justifiable when it is guesswork with what material the legislature would,
if it had discovered the gap, have filled it in. If a gap is disclosed, the remedy lies in an amending Act.”

• R (Quintavalle) v Sec of State [2003]


Unified Contextual Approach
Problem arises over which approach should be used.

• Prof John Willis stated:


• “A court invokes whichever of the rules of produces a result that satisfies its sense of justice in
the case before it”

• Sir Rupert Cross:


1. Give effect to the ordinary meaning of the words
2. Apply a secondary meaning if the ordinary meaning would be contrary to the purpose of the
statute
3. The judge may read words in or out where appropriate
4. The judge may apply aids to constructions
5. The courts must interpret a statute in a way which is compatible with the Human Rights Act
1998
What Next?
• Consolidate notes

• Complete any pre-engagement tasks for the seminar

• Complete any pre-reading for the seminar

You might also like