Download LSM NOTES STATUTORY INTERPRETATION and more Study notes Legal English in PDF only on Docsity!
Statutory interpretation Explanation Literal rule A judge will interpret words in plain, ordinary, everyday or natural meaning even if the result is not very sensible Advantage Disadvantage
- No scope for the judges' own opinions or prejudices to interfere Emphasise parliamentary supremacy Upholds separation of power Promote certainty 1. Possibility of absurd or illogical Illustrated in R v Harris case Case example Fisher v Bell Under The Offensive Weapons Act (1959), it is an offence to offer certain offensive weapons for sale BUT The law stated that display of good in a window is not an intention of sale, but an invitation to treat Outcome : Based on literal rule, Bell could not be convicted R v Harris The defendant bit off the end of the victim's nose
BUT the law stated that the offence was 'to stab or wound '. Under
literal rule, biting is not stabbing or wounding Outcome : the defendant not guilty (absurdity result) Golden rule The rule was first stated by Lord Wensleydale in Grey v Pearson (1857) It allows the court to assume that Parliament intended that its legislative provision have a wider definition than its literal meaning, the grammatical and ordinary sense of a word can be modified to avoid absurdity. It can be defined as a modification of the literal rule
There is two version of the golden rule Narrow meaning : if a word is capable of more than one meaning, judges may only choose between those meanings E.g. R v Allen (1872) s.57 of the offence against the Person Act 1861 - it is an offence to marry whilst one's original spouse was still alive. The word 'marry' can mean to become legally married or takes part or 'goes through' a ceremony of marriage. Outcome : The court decided that in the OAPA 1861, the word had this second meaning of go through a ceremony of marriage. The defendant be convicted (guilty of bigamy). Wider meaning : It applies when the meaning of a word in an Act is clear, but to adopt that meaning would result in absurdity. E.g. Re Sigsworth (1935) A son murdered his mom and tried to inherit his mother's property under the Administration of Estate Act 1925 The Act was silent on the common law rules Outcome : The court held that the man can't inherit his mother's property as this would leads to absurd result. Advantage Disadvantage
- More flexible compared with the literal rule It allow judges to modify the literal interpretation of statutory language when it leads to an absurd It allows for a more just application of the law by prioritising reasonableness to adapt the law over strict literalism 1. Potential for judicial Overreach It is because it allows the judges to depart from literal text of a statute based on their perception of what is reasonable Critics argue that the judges' discretion should be exercised with caution, as it opens the door for judges to impose their own views or policy preferences under the guise of avoiding absurd outcomes Mischief rule Set out in Heydons case (1584) the oldest statutory interpretation Seeks to understand the meaning of the statute, by backtracking to the case laws before the statute was passed
Purposive approach A type of statutory interpretation that looks to the positive social purpose of legislation rather than focusing on dealing with the legal loopholes that an Act might have been created The court deciding what judges believe Parliament meant to achieve (make decision based on Parliament intention) Advantage Disadvantage
- More flexible It looks to the spirit of law, rather than its actual words Potentially more fair approach in interpretation 1. Undemocratic Unelected judges interpret law and make decision subjectively 2. Uncertainty It is not strictly follow the literal meaning of statutory wording It is always the 'other side' of Case example Coltman v Bibby Tankers An employee was killed when a ship sank The employee representative argued that the defect in equipment is the cause of death, which is the Inhip that provided by the defendant The court consider whether the word 'equipment' in the employer's liability (defective equipment act 1969) could include a ship. [The Act
defined it as including'any plant and machinery, vehicle, aircraft and
clothing']
Outcome : By using purposive approach, the House of Lords held that the word 'equipment' did include a ship R (Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for health (2003) An embryo is defined as 'a live human embryo where fertilisation is complete' However, the scientific advances allow the creation of embryos through a method of cloning that not require fertilisation Outcome : The House of Lords stated that it was necessary to take purposive approach to interpretation, since the creation of live human embryos through cloning method is regarded as 'fell within the same genus of facts' as in the expressed policy of Parliament'.
Human Right Act 1998 (HRA)
Section 2 Take ECHR / Strasbourg case law into account Imposed a duty on courts to 'take into account' ECtHR decisions when deciding questions connected to Convention rights Ullah's Principle - Ullah v Special Adjudicator 2004 Criticism: too restricting on UK courts to develop human rights law Can't be derived from s.2 = doesn't reflect the legislative origins Lord Bingham argued: UK courts must 'keep pace with Strasbourg jurisprudence as it evolves, no more, no less' Suggested the mirror principle of UK law with ECHR Later cases (Horncastle [2009], Pinnock [2010]) clarified that UK courts are not bound by ECtHR decisions and may depart from them if there are strong reasons or if ECtHR misunderstood UK law Section 3 Requires judiciary to interpret legislation in a way that is compatible with Convention rights weaves convention rights into all legislation in the UK, both pre- and post- HRA. Section 4 It empowered the seniour judges of higher courts to declare issue declaration of incompatibility. It is the courts' responsibility to inform Parliament that a provision of an Act is incompatible with the ECHR. However, the declaration of incompatibility does not affect the validity of the Act, but it requires Parliament to consider the provision and potentially amend or repeal it. Section 10 A Minister of the Crown can amend the offending legislation by a fast-track procedure which avoids the full parliamentary process if he considers necessary to remove the incompatibility. The power can be used when : The court issues a declaration of incompatibility under Section 4 HRA 1998 The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) finds that UK law violates the convention
