The Rules of Statutory Interpretation

RULES OF STATUTORY
INTERPRETATION
7/27/2015 1

NAMES AND UOB
• Aanchal Saxena 12032303
• Avanti Mukul 12032274
• Blessy Stephen 12032302
• Charmi Dutia 12032275
• Ramona Raduta 12032305
7/27/2015 2

INTRODUCTION
• Statutory interpretation may be required where
complexity and uncertainty arises
• There are several instances where judges call for
statues to be interpreted further; such as “failure of
legislation to cover a specific point, a broad term,
ambiguity, a drafting error, new developments, and
changes in the use of language”.
• In 1978 Parliament passed the Interpretation Act to
set out general rules for courts to interpret acts.
• Three rules had been developed accordingly to
provide a framework of interpretation.
• Literal Rule, Golden Rule and the Mischief Rule.
7/27/2015 3

Literal Rule
• The Literal Rule is a part of one of the statutory
rules of interpretation. It is the first rule applied
by judges.
• “When the literal rule is applied the words in a
statute are given their ordinary, plain and
dictionary meaning”
• Does not call for further interpretation of an act
and directly honours the intentions of the
draftsman who wrote it.
7/27/2015 4

Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394
Facts:
• A shopkeeper was convicted of offering for sale a flick knife contrary to
the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 s.1(1); he had displayed
the knife in his shop window. The shopkeeper appealed. The shopkeeper
was successful in his appeal and was acquitted.
Held:
• The judges at the first instance found that displaying the knife was
merely an invitation to treat, not an offer, and thus no liability arose. The
Prosecutor appealed the judges' decision.
• Parliament must be taken to know the general law. It is clear that,
according to the ordinary law of contract, the display of an article with a
price on it in a shop window is merely an invitation to treat. It is in no
sense an offer for sale the acceptance of which constitutes a contract. the
Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 suggested that only a true
offer would be prohibited by the Act. The court dismissed the appeal.
7/27/2015 5

Advantages of the Literal Rule
• It results in a quick decision because the meaning can be
found in a dictionary or other source.
• It respects parliamentary supremacy because a judge's
function is to apply the words of Parliament and not to
make law. It restricts the role of the judges and provides
no scope for the judges to use their own opinion and
prejudices.
• It is also advantageous when the words under discussion
are clear, lacking ambiguity or broadness.
7/27/2015 6

R v Harris (1836) 7 C & P 446
• The defendant bit off his victim's nose. The
statute made it an offence 'to stab cut or wound'
the court held that under the literal rule the act
of biting did not come within the meaning of
stab cut or wound as these words implied an
instrument had to be used. Therefore the
defendant's conviction was quashed.
7/27/2015 7

Disadvantages of the Literal Rule
• It can produce absurd outcomes, create injustice and
result in outcomes that do not match parliamentary
intentions.
• Creates awkward precedents which require
Parliamentary time to correct
• Fails to recognise the complexities and limitations of
English language
• Undermines public confidence in the law
• It can create loopholes in the law- eg: Fischer v Bell
• There can be disagreement to what amounts to the
ordinary or natural meaning
7/27/2015 8

• Golden rule is the elaboration or extension of
the Literal Rule.
• It may be applied where an application of
the literal rule would lead to an absurdity.
• It can be applied in the following ways :
The narrow approach
The wide approach
The Golden Rule
7/27/2015 9

The Narrow Approach
• The narrow approach occurs when a word has
multiple meanings.
• The judge selects one meaning that best fits the
situation and does not lead to absurdity.
• This approach is illustrated in the case of R v
Allen (1872)
7/27/2015 10

R v Allen (1872) LR1 CCR 367
• The defendant was charged with the offence of bigamy under
s.57 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The statute
states 'whosoever being married shall marry any other person
during the lifetime of the former husband or wife is guilty of an
offence'. Under a literal interpretation of this section the
offence would be impossible to commit since civil law will not
recognize a second marriage any attempt to marry in such
circumstances would not be recognized as a valid marriage.
Held:
The court applied the golden rule and held that the word
'marry' should be interpreted as 'to go through a marriage
ceremony'. The defendant's conviction was upheld.
•
7/27/2015 11

The Wide Approach
• The wide approach is adopted when the meaning
of a word would result in a ridiculous or
repugnant outcome.
• This approach is illustrated in the case of
ReSigsworth (1935)
7/27/2015 12

ReSigsworth (1935) 1ch 98
• This was a case of murder and inheritance
• Under s.46 of the Administration of Estates Act 1925, a
person, could not inherit the estate of the decease if
they had murdered that other person, otherwise the
murderer would benefit from his/her crime.
HELD
• To avoid this absurdity the court held that under s.46
of the Administration of Estates Act 1925, a son who
had murdered his mother could not profit from that
crime even though there was only one literal meaning
to the word ‘issue’ (i.e. blood offspring) in the Act.
7/27/2015 13

Advantages of the Golden Rule
• Errors in drafting can be corrected immediately
for example the case of R v Allen(1872)
• Decisions made are more in line with the
parliament’s intentions
• Applying this rule closes loopholes
• Application of this rule often gets more just
results and brings common sense to the law
7/27/2015 14

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 . For
example London and North Eastern Railway v
Berriman [1946] AC 278
7/27/2015 15

Mischief Rule
• The objective of this rule is to confirm the mischief and errors in the statutes.
• This rule was initiated in the 16th century.
• These days this rule is used in a more restricted way in line with the statutes
they interpret. It is now used as a ‘modern’ way of statutory construction
instead of a rule that is on its own and acts as an alternative to the ways of
construction given by the Literal and Golden rule.
• The application of this rule enables the judge to have more discretion and
decide upon the intentions of the Parliament. On the other hand the
superiority of the Parliament is reduced which is undemocratic.
• This rule is seen as a more effective way of understanding the acts and is more
flexible than the Golden and Literal Rule. The following two cases illustrate
how mischief rule is used in them:
7/27/2015 16

ROYAL COLLEGE Of NURSING v DHSS(Delaware
Health and Social Services)[1981] 2 WLR 279
FACTS:
The Royal College of Nursing challenged an action against the legality of the
involvement of nurses in carrying out abortions. The Offenses against the Person
Act 1861 states that it is an offence for any person to carry out an abortion except
a doctor who has been legally certified. The Abortion Act 1967 stated that the
doctor or a legal medical practioner could carry out the abortion under satisfying
conditions. As technology advanced surgical abortions were replaced by
hormonal abortions (i.e. induced labor with drugs).In this case the first part was
done by the doctor and the second part by the nurse without the supervision of
the doctor.
HELD:
The judgment was that it is legal for the nurse to administer such abortions. The
Abortion Act 1967 was aimed to remove all the street abortions completely as
there is no proper medical care available on the streets.Therefore,the behavior of
the nurses in this case is outside the mischief rule of the Act 1967or it is lawful
for the nurses to carry out this action.
7/27/2015 17

ELLIOT v GREY[1960] 1 QB 367
FACTS:
According to the Road Traffic Act 1930 no uninsured car is allowed to be
driven or parked on the road. The defendants’ car was parked on the
road because it was jacked up and the battery was removed. He argued
that he was not ‘using’ the car as it was clearly seen that he could not
drive it.
HELD:
The defendant was found guilty because the Parliament wanted people
to use insured cars. The mischief rule was applied by the court and
stated that the car was being used on the road and incase of an accident
insurance would be required. The rule was that the people are
compensated when injured due to the incidents or dangers caused by
others.
As seen in the above cases mischief rule can result in a very satisfying
manner as compared to literal and golden rule.
7/27/2015 18

Advantages of the Mischief Rule
• Closes loopholes
• allows the law to develop and adapt to changing
needs eg Royal College of Nursing v DHSS
7/27/2015 19

Problems with the Mischief Rule
• 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.
7/27/2015 20

London and North Eastern Railway v
Berriman [1946] AC 278
• A railway worker was killed whilst oiling the track.
No look out man had been provided. A statute
provided compensation payable on death for those
'relaying or repairing' the track. Under the literal rule
oiling did not come into either of these categories.
This result although very harsh could not to be said
to be absurd so the golden rule could not be
applied. There was no ambiguity in the words
therefore the mischief rule could not be applied.
Unfortunately the widow was entitled to nothing.
7/27/2015 21

HANSARD
• An official report of debates in Parliament. (1)
• Natinalised in 1909.
• It is an official word-for-word report of
proceedings of House of Commons and House of
Lords. (2)
• In the UK Parliament, Hansard was the first major
digitization project.(3)
7/27/2015 22

Why is it Useful?
• Contains useful background information to
passing of Bill.
• Can be used to trace history of health services,
economy, political changes and developments,
world wars, etc.
• Possible to follow every word a certain politician
has said during their parliamentary career.
7/27/2015 23

Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart [1993]
HL
Facts:
• It is landmark decision of House of Lords whether to use
legislative history in statutory interpretations. The court, under
some circumstances, could refer to statements made by the
House of Common and House of Lords in attempt to interpret
the meaning of legislation. This case is concerned with the tax
liability of teachers at a public school where one of the perk of
the job was that their sons could be educated at one fifth of
usual cost. Mr. Hart was the benefiting school master and in his
case, the actual additional cost to the employer was
• Negligible, because boys educated through the scheme were
filling places which otherwise would have been empty. This
perk was a taxable benefit under s.61(1) of the Finance Act
1976 as it was a cash equivalent. The question for the House of
Lords was how much tax should be levied.
7/27/2015 24

Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart [1993]
HL
Held:
When the railway men were enjoying the concessions, the
responses made by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury
during the Committee stage of the bill to queries regarding
the same made it clear that tax should be levied at the
marginal cost incurred by the employer. Embracing this
interpretation, tax should be assessed on the basis of the
marginal cost to the employer, not on the average cost of
providing education for the employees' sons and the
public. Also, allowing the use of Hansard as an extrinsic aid
to the interpretation of statutes.
7/27/2015 25

Rules of Language
• Rules of language have developed to help in the
interpretation of statutes.
• They allow judges to look at other words in the
Act in order to make the meaning clear.
• The three Rules of Language are
Ejusdem generis
Expressio unius est exclusio alterius
Noscitur a sociis
7/27/2015 26

Ejusdem Generis Rule
• Ejusdem Generis Rule – it means “of the same type”.
For example, if a law refers to automobiles, trucks,
tractors, motorcycle, etc, “vehicles” would not
include airplane since the list was of land based
transportation.
• This rule was used in Powell v Kempton Park
Racecourse (1889). The defendant had been
operating an outside betting place. The Act stated
'house, office, room or other place of betting'. The
court therefore had to define if 'other place' would
cover the defendant's situation. As the terms in the
list all referred to indoor places, it was decided that
'other place' also referred to an indoor place.7/27/2015 27

Expressio unius est exclusion alterius
• Expressio unius est exclusion alterius - it means “to
express one is to exclude others”. Therefore mention
of one or more specific things may be taken to
exclude others of the same type.
• An example can be seen in Tempest v Kilner (1846).
This considered the Statute of Frauds Act 1677,
which noted that a contract for the sale of 'goods,
wares and merchandise of £10 or more' needed to
be evidenced in writing. This case concerned stocks
and shares and, because they were not expressly
mentioned in the list, they were excluded.
7/27/2015 28

Noscitur a Sociis
• Noscitur a sociis – this means “known by the
company it keeps”. That is to say that a word derives
meaning from surrounding words.
• In Pengelly v. Bell Punch Co. Ltd [1964] 1 WLR 1055
the court had to decide whether a floor used for
storage came under the Factories Act 1961, whereby
'floors, steps, stairs, passageways and gangways' had
to be kept free from obstruction. The court held that
as all the other words were used to indicate
passage, a floor used exclusively for storage did not
fall within the Act.
7/27/2015 29

CONCLUSION
• When compared, the rules of statutory
interpretation are unalike so it is down to the
discretion of the judge to apply which rule they
see fits best.
• We learnt that Hansard is the official report of
what was said in Parliament when the Act was
debated.
• And how the rules of language act as an aid to
the statutory interpretation of the 3 rules.
7/27/2015 30

References
• Auslaw.wikispaces.com.
auslaw - Fisher v Bell
In-text: (Auslaw.wikispaces.com, 2013) Bibliography: Auslaw.wikispaces.com. 2013. auslaw - Fisher v Bell.
[online] Available at: http://auslaw.wikispaces.com/Fisher+v+Bell [Accessed: 22 Dec 2013].
• E-lawresources.co.uk.
Golden rule of statutory interpretation
In-text: (E-lawresources.co.uk, 2013)
Bibliography: E-lawresources.co.uk. 2013. Golden rule of statutory interpretation. [online] Available at:
http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Golden-rule.php [Accessed: 19 Dec 2013].
• E-lawresources.co.uk.
Literal rule of statutory interpretation
In-text: (E-lawresources.co.uk, 2013)
Bibliography: E-lawresources.co.uk. 2013. Literal rule of statutory interpretation. [online] Available at:
http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/Literal-rule.php [Accessed: 20 Dec 2013].
7/27/2015 31

• Inbrief.co.uk.
Statutory Interpretation
In-text: (Inbrief.co.uk, 2013)
Bibliography: Inbrief.co.uk. 2013. Statutory Interpretation. [online] Available at:
http://www.inbrief.co.uk/legal-system/statutory-interpretation.htm [Accessed: 20 Dec 2013].
• Luxverbi.org.uk.
Legal Tutorial 03
In-text: (Luxverbi.org.uk, 2013)
Bibliography: Luxverbi.org.uk. 2013. Legal Tutorial 03. [online] Available at:
http://www.luxverbi.org.uk/tutorial_03.htm [Accessed: 20 Dec 2013].
• Quizlet.com.
Statutory Interpretation - Rules of Language
In-text: (Quizlet.com, 2013)
Bibliography: Quizlet.com. 2013. Statutory Interpretation - Rules of Language. [online] Available at:
http://quizlet.com/4935280/statutory-interpretation-rules-of-language-flash-cards/ [Accessed: 21 Dec 2013].
• Sixthformlaw.info.
Cases - judicial precedent House of Lords and Privy Council
In-text: (Sixthformlaw.info, 2013)
Bibliography: Sixthformlaw.info. 2013. Cases - judicial precedent House of Lords and Privy Council. [online]
Available at: http://sixthformlaw.info/02_cases/mod2/cases_precedent_hol.htm#Pepper (Inspector of Taxes)
v Hart [1993] HL [Accessed: 20 Dec 2013].7/27/2015 32

The Rules of Statutory Interpretation

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to The Rules of Statutory Interpretation (20)

More from Aanchal Saxena (9)

Recently uploaded (20)

The Rules of Statutory Interpretation

Editor's Notes