Statutory Interpretation Notes PDF

Preview

Summary

statutory interpretation brief notes...

Description

Statutory Interpretation Notes What is the the literal rule? - The courts give words their plain, ordinary or literal meaning, as if it would appear in a dictionary. They apply this meaning even if the result is not very sensible. What did Lord Esher say in of R V Judge of the City of London (1982) regarding the literal rule? - "If the words of an Act are clear then you must follow them even though they lead to a manifest absurdity. The court has nothing to do with the question whether the legislature has committed an absurdity." R v Harris (1836) FACTS: - A statute made it an offence to 'stab, cut or wound' another person. Harris bit off her friend's nose in a fight - and the police man's finger. R v Harris (1836) PRINCIPLE: - She was not guilty under the statute because the words pointed towards the use of a weapon, not teeth. Fisher v Bell (1961) FACTS: - An Act made it an offence to 'sell or offer for sale' flick-knives. Bell placed a flick-knife in his shop window with a price tag on it. Fisher v Bell (1961) PRINCIPLE: - He was found not guilty of the offence because in the law of contract, placing an item on display is known as an 'invitation to treat' which means an invitation for a customer to offer to buy the product rather than an 'offer for sale' Whiteley v Chappell (1868) FACTS: - D was charged under a section which made it an offence to impersonate 'any person entitled to vote.' They had impersonated a person whose name was on the voters' list but who had died. Whiteley v Chappell (1868) PRINCIPLE: - The defendant was not guilty since a dead person is not, in the literal meaning of the words 'entitled to vote.' London & N.E. Railway Co v Berriman (1946) FACTS: - A worker was killed while doing maintenance work, oiling points along a railway line. His widow tried to claim compensation under the Fatal Accidents Act. London & N.E. Railway Co v Berriman (1946) PRINCIPLE: - Mrs Berriman's claim failed because the Act said 'for the purposes of relaying or repairing' the line. The court took the words in their literal meaning and said that oiling points was 'maintenance' and so not covered by the Act. Advantages of the Literal Rule - -Allows lawyers to advise -Forces parliament to revise law -Provides no scope for judges to make their own law -Upholds separation of powers -Respects parliaments supremacy

-Encourages parliament to be precise Problems with the Literal Rule - -creates loopholes in the law -demands impossible level of accurate legislative draftsmanship -leads to injustice and harsh decisions -creates awkward precedents -fails to recognise complexities with the English language. -undermines public confidence in the law -goes against the intention of parliament The Golden Rule - A modification of the literal rule. It starts by looking at the literal meaning but the court is then allowed to avoid an interpretation which would lead to an absurd result. The Narrow Golden Rule - Where a word or words have two possible meanings but one would produce an unwanted or absurd outcome the court may choose between them. R v Allen (1892) FACTS: - It was claimed that it was impossible for someone to 'marry' someone else whilst they were still married to someone else. They may go through a marriage ceremony but they would not be married. The literal rule would make the statute useless as no one would ever be able to be prosecuted for bigamy. R v Allen (1892) PRINCIPLE: - The court held that 'shall marry' should be interpreted to mean 'shall go through a marriage ceremony'. Jones v DPP (1962) - 'It is a cardinal principle applicable to all kinds of statutes' - Lord Reid Adler V George (1964) FACTS: - The Official Secrets Act 1920 made it an offence to 'obstruct her Majesty's Forces in the vicinity of a prohibited place'. The defendant had obstructed the forces personnel actually inside the prohibited place. The court had to decide if this was the same as 'in the vicinity'. Adler V George (1964) PRINCIPLE: - They were found guilty as it would be absurd if those causing an obstruction outside would be guilty but those that had got inside to cause the obstruction were not. They interpreted the words in the act to mean 'in or in the vicinity of the prohibited place'. The Wide/ Broad Golden Rule - The meaning of a word is not ambiguous but to give it its literal meaning would produce a repugnant outcome. Here the judge may 'alter' the meaning of the word(s) to avoid the unwanted outcome and give effect to parliament's intentions. Re: Sigsworth (1935) FACTS: - A son had murdered his mother. The mother had not made a will, so normally her estate would pass to her next of kin under the administration of estates act 1925. This meant that her murderer son would have inherited.

Re: Sigsworth (1935) PRINCIPLE: - There was no ambiguity in the Act, but the court was not prepared to let a murderer benefit from his crime. It was held that the literal rule should not apply; the broad approach to the golden rule should be used to prevent the situation of the son inheriting. Advantages of the Golden Rule - -Errors in drafting can be corrected -Decisions are more in line with Parliament's intention -Gives a more just result -Brings common sense to the law -Can prevent the problems of the literal rule -Still respects parliamentary supremacy -The rule upholds Parliament's will more than the literal rule -Allows the judge to choose the most sensible meaning Problems with the Golden Rule - -Infringes the separation of powers -No clear guidelines as to when it should be used. -Judges will have different meanings of what is 'abusrd' -The judge may need to use extrinsic aids beyond a dictionary -Makes it hard for lawyers to advise -Only used in rare occasions -Not been an effective check on the literal rule -May give a judge too much discretion -Undemocratic The Mischief Rule - The court should look to see what the law was before the act in order to discover what gap or mischief the Act was intended to cover. The court should then interpret the Act in such a way that the gap is covered. Heydon's Case (1584). - The mischief rule was laid down in this old case Smith v Hughes (1960) FACTS: - Prostitutes began trying to attract customers by signalling to men from balconies and windows. They were charged under an act which said it was an 'offence for a common prostitute to loiter or solicit in the streets or public place' Smith v Hughes (1960) PRINCIPLE: - They were not literally in the streets, the court held that the mischief sought to be avoided was clearing up the streets from prostitutes. Royal College of Nursing v DHSS (1981) FACTS: - The Abortion Act 1967 provided that a pregnancy should be 'terminated by a registered medical practitioner.' As medicine progressed nurses were able to carry out the procedure & give drugs. Is this legal? Royal College of Nursing v DHSS (1981) PRINCIPLE: - The HOL (3/2) held it was legal. The mischief Parliament was trying to remedy was the unsatisfactory state of the law before 1967 and the no of illegal abortions.

DPP v Bull [1995] FACTS: - A man was charged with being a 'common prostitute' magistrates found him not guilty as 'common prostitute' only related to females and not males. The prosecution appealed by way of case stated. DPP v Bull [1995] PRINCIPLE: - The court held that the Act did only apply to females. The Report only referred to female prostitution and didn't mention male prostitutes. The QBD held the mischief the Act was aimed at was controlling the behaviour of only female prostitutes. Advantages of the mischief rule - -Helps to avoid the absurdity and injustices. -Promotes 'flexibility' and allows judges to put into effect the remedy Parliament chose. -Leads to reforming and improving law. -Offers an alternative to the literal and golden rule. Problems with the mischief rule - -Gives judges a law making role infringing the separation of powers. -Undermines the certainty and predictability of law -It allows for potential judicial law-making -May have an impact on doctrines -No consistency as different judges reach different conclusions. -It can only be used if parliament's intention can be discovered, this affects the availability. The Purposive Approach - Judges will go beyond the mischief rule in that the court is not just looking to see what the gap was in the old law; the judges are deciding what they believe Parliament meant to achieve R v Registrar-General ex parte Smith (1990) FACTS: - Charles Smith applied for his birth certificate and went through all the necessary procedures. Under the literal approach, the Registrar General had to supply him with the information. However, Mr Smith was a convicted murderer with reoccurring bouts of psychiatric illness. A psychiatrist thought he might be hostile towards his birth mother. R v Registrar-General ex parte Smith (1990) PRINCIPLE: - The court used the purposive approach to say that parliament could not have intended to promote serious crime. Due to the risk to the birth mother, they did not have to disclose the information. R (Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health (2003) FACTS: - The HOL had to decide if organisms that had been created by CNR came within the definition of 'embryo' in the Human Embryology and Fertilisation Act 1990. CNR was not possible when the act was created. Fertilisation is not used in CNR. R (Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health (2003) PRINCIPLE: - Lord Bingham: 'The Courts task, is to give effect to parliaments purpose....Parliament could not have intended to distinguish between embryos produced with or without fertilisation since it was unaware of the latter possibility.'

Jones v Tower Boot Co Ltd (1977) FACTS: - Jones claimed racial discrimination at work. There were no other employees from another ethnic origin. He was subjected to harassment such as being called 'chimp'; his colleagues burned his arms, whipped his legs and threw metal bolts at his head. Jones v Tower Boot Co Ltd (1977) PRINCIPLE: - Lord Justice Waite said that it would be wrong to apply a narrow interpretation to the words so as to let the employer's liability slip through the net. The court therefore used the purposive approach to find that he had suffered racial harassment. Lister v Forth Dry Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (1989) FACTS: - A business was sold to new ownership. One hour before the transfer of ownership occurred, all the employees of the business were dismissed by their old employer. The employees claimed that they had been unfairly dismissed and had protection from the 'TUPE' Regulations that covered the transfer of businesses. Lister v Forth Dry Dock and Engineering Co Ltd (1989) PRINCIPLE: - Actual transfer does not terminate employment. They did this as the aim of the law was to protect employees when businesses were transferred and so the purposive approach was used to enforce the purpose of the law. Magor & St Mellons v Newport Corp (1950) - "We sit here to find out the intention of Parliament and carry it out, and we do this better by filling in the gaps and making sense of the enactment than by opening it up to destructive analysis." Lord Denning. Advantages of the Purposive Approach - -It leads to justice in individual cases. -It allows the law to cover more situations- can fill gaps left by parliament. -It is useful where new technology is involved. -The Purposive approach respects parliamentary supremacy more by giving effect to parliament's true intentions. Disadvantages of the Purposive Approach - -Undemocratic and goes against the supremacy of parliament and the separation of powers. -It is difficult to find out what parliament intended. -Lawyers find it difficult to advise clients- law is uncertain The Rules of Language - -Ejusdem Generis - Expressio Unius Exclusio Alterius - Noscitur a Sociis The Ejusdem Generis Rule - Where there is a list of words followed by general words, then the general words are limited to the same kind of items as the specific words. Example: Cats, dogs and other animals = other domestic animals.

Powell v Kempton Park Racecourse (1899) FACTS: - The defendant was charged with keeping a 'house, office, room, or other place for betting.' He had been operating betting at Tattersall's ring which is outdoors. Powell v Kempton Park Racecourse (1899) PRINCIPLE: - The defendant was not guilty - the general words 'other place' had to refer to indoor places since all the words in the list were indoor places. Allen v Emmerson (1944) - There must be at least two specific words in the list before the general word or phrase for this rule to operate. The Expressio Unius Exclusio Alterius Rule - The mention of one thing excludes others. Where there is a list of words which is not followed by general words, then the act applies only to the items in the list. Example: Weekends and public holidays = excludes ordinary weekdays. Tempest v Kilner (1846) FACTS: - The list 'goods, wares and merchandise' was not followed by any general words, so the court held that only contracts for these three types of things were affected by the statute. Tempest v Kilner (1846) PRINCIPLE: - Because stocks and shares were not mentioned they were not caught by the statute. The Noscitur a Sociis Rule - A word is known by the company it keeps. Words must be looked at in context and interpreted accordingly. Inland Revenue Commissioners v Frere (1965) FACTS: - The section set out rules for 'interest, annuities or other annual interest.' Inland Revenue Commissioners v Frere (1965) PRINCIPLE: - The 1st use of the word 'interest' on its own could have meant any interest paid, whether daily, monthly or annually. Because of the words 'other annual interest' the court decided that 'interest' meant only annual interest. Presumptions - In Addition to the rules of interpretation and the rules of language, courts will also make certain presumptions about the law, but these are only a starting point. If the statute clearly states the opposite, then the presumption will not apply. Presumption that the common law has not changed - Common law is the law that has been created by judges when they make decisions about cases that come before the court. Unless parliament has made it clear in an act that the common law has been altered (Leach v R (1912)), it will be assumed by the judge that the same common law rule applies.

Presumption that Mens Rea is required - If parliament feels that an offence could be committed without the necessary mental element then they should state this is so in the act. If they do not, then the judge will assume that both elements are required. Presumption that the Crown is not bound by any statute unless a statute expresses so or implies that it is. - This means 'the state' and includes all of its land such as all bases for the armed forces. E.g. The Equal Pay Act 1970 expressly binds the Crown which means that all the governments' employees have the same rights against their employer as everyone else. Presumption that legislation does not apply retrospectively. - When an act is created it should only make certain behaviour criminal or liable after the date of commencement of the act i.e. that it does not render acts done in the past as unlawful. Intrinsic Aids - 'internal' these are found within the act itself -Long and short title -Marginal notes & headings -Preambles (only in very old acts) -Schedules -Interpretation Sections -Punctuation Long and short title - Acts have two titles, the 'short title' and the 'long title'. The 'long title' sets out the purposes of the Act, sometimes at great length, whereas the 'short title' is a more convenient short form by which the Act will usually be known. Marginal notes & headings - These are notes in the margin, or headings that have been inserted by the draftsman when the act goes for printing, to assist with understanding of that particular section of the act. Preambles - Older statutes used a preamble which is a statement at the beginning of the act setting out its purpose and scope, i.e. the mischief to be remedied and to what extent. Preambles ceased to be used in the nineteenth century, except in private Acts. Schedules - These are additions/ appendices to the main body of the act that help to explain the meaning of the act. For instance, the Postal Services Act 2000 contained a schedule that described the composition and appointment procedure for the new Postal Service Commission. Interpretation Sections - Modern acts include interpretation sections. They set out lists of what meanings are intended for certain words within the act. This helps the judge understand the meaning of the statute. For example The Theft Act 1968 provides a definition of theft and subsequent sections interpret the definition. E.g. 'property' includes money. Punctuations - This is used in the normal way to understand the text of an act.

Extrinsic Aids - External sources to help explain meaning -Dictionaries -Earlier case law -Academic texts -Previous Acts of Parliament on the same topic. -Law Reform Reports -Reports of International conventions, regulations or directives. -Explanatory notes -Hansard Hansard - Hansard is the official daily reports and debates in Parliament and can now be used as an external aid in statutory interpretation. Until 1992, Hansard was not allowed to be used in Parliament. Lord Denning had tried in the case of Davis v Johnson (1978) but the HOL disapproved as it was regarded as a breach of Parliamentary privilege. Pepper v Hart (1993) FACTS: - This case concerned whether teachers should pay tax under the Finance Act 1976, on perks that they received from their employment at a private school. The House of Lords relaxed the old rule that prevented reference to Hansard for the purposes of statutory interpretation; so as to ensure that taxation was not imposed in a way that the Treasury had "assured" the House of Commons was not intended Pepper v Hart (1993) PRINCIPLE: - 1. Hansard may be considered but only where the words of the Act are ambiguous or obscure or lead to an absurdity. 2. Even then, Hansard should only be used if there was a clear statement by the Minister introducing the legislation, which would resolve the ambiguity or absurdity. Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (no. 2) (1996) - The court went a step further by stating that where legislation was passed in order to give effect to international obligations then it was important to do so and using Hansard was a way of ensuring this. Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry ( 2004) - HOL gave a restricted interpretation of Pepper v Hart. It held that only statements made by a minister or someone promoting the legislation could be looked at by the court. Any other statements recorded in Hansard should be ignored. This reinforced the importance of the courts not interfering with parliament's legislative role. Arguments for the use of Hansard - -It was argued BY Lord Denning in Davis that it was ridiculous to ignore Hansard when it gave such a useful insight into parliament's intention. -Courts in the US and Europe use legislative materials to decide cases. Therefore we should also use these facilities. -Such legislation is subject to widespread media coverage which the judge would have been subjected to so it seems unnecessary to hide the actual debates from them.

Arguments against the use of Hansard - -Evidence provided by parliamentary debates may not be reliable: what was said in the debate may not set out a clear unbiased explanation of the meaning of the terms of the statute. -Considering parliamentary debates can be very time consuming and when lawyers do this it can become very costly. -The risk of only considering the promoting ministers contribution is that it ignores very valid adverse opinions about the meaning of the statute....