Statutory Interpretation

• Takes the everyday ordinary dictionary meaning of a word/phrase 
• may lead to absurd results 

• D displays flick knife in shop window contray to the offensive weapons Act says you cannot offer for sale of such weapon. 
• Contract Law says that a shop display is not an offer for sale but an invitation to treat
• D IS NOT GUILTY!!!

• Illegal impersonate anybody entitled to vote in an election 
• D votes in the name of a deceased person
• Interpreting literally, dead people cannot vote. 
• D IS FOUND NOT GUILTY. 

• Extension of the Literal Rule 
• Avoids Absurbd results
• Two approaches: Narrow+Broad 

• Word or phrase has more than one meaning so Judges select meaning that avoids absurd result.
• Allen (1872) 
• llegal to remarry without the first marriage to be ended (divorced) (OAPA S.57)
• D tries to marry niece of his first wife without being divorced. So 2nd marriage not void
• Courts said "Shall Marry" is to go through with a marriage ceremony which Allen had done. 
• ALLEN IS FOUND GUILTY!!!!!!

• Only one meaning of a word/phrase but to apply it would cause an absurd result so Judges modify the meaning to avoid absurdity.
• Adler V George
• D obstructs member of Armed forces in the vicinity of a prohibited area. 
• D says he cannot be guilty as he is in the prohibited area and not the vicinity.
• Under the Literal rule D would be found Not Guilty.
• Under the Golden rule Judges interpreted in the vicinity to include the prohibited area. D IS FOUND GUILTY

• Looks at the gap in the law that parliament felt it necessary to fill by passing an Act/Statute. 
• Heydons case (1584) sets out four things to consider:

1- What was the common law before the Act was passed?

2- What was the defect/mischief that the law did not provide a remedy for?

3- What remedy does the Act attempt to provide?

4- What was the true reason for the remedy? 

Smith V Hughes:

• Ilegal to solicit in a public place (Street offences Act)
• D solicits from a private property window 
• D IS FOUND GUILTY
• Parliament intended to stop soliciting all together by passing the Act, therefore it did not matter where the soliciting took place. 

• Focuses on what Parliament intended when passing the new law
• looks at the Act as a whole piece of legislation 
• consistent with EU Law 
• Jones V Tower Boot
• Court had decided whether the verbal racial abuse of an employee was the employers responsibility (if it fell within "course of the employer" S.32 Race Relations Act) 
• The Act was to eliminate racial discrimination in the work place, so EMPLOYER IS FOUND LIABLE 

• Everything found inside the Act 
• Long/Short Title (Checking the Abortion Act to determin who could legally conduct Abortions)
• Preamble- A statement explaining the purpose of the Act
• Scheduels- referred to make sense of main text
• Interpretation sections- explaning key words 
• Punctuation- have an effect on how the meaning of words can be interpreted. 

• Everything found outside an Act 
• Dictionaires- Vaughn V Vaughn- check the definition of the word molest 
• Previous Acts- maybe referred to (Wheatley)- Explosive Substances Act 
• Interpretation Act- provides deifinitions of words often used in Acts (He is to include she)
• Reports from Law commissons- Black Clawson- highlight what is wrong with the old law and suggest options. 
• Text Books- referred to on guidance of meanings of word/phrase (Re Castioni)
• Hansard- Recording of Parliament debates 

• Where General words follow particular words when general words are the same type as particular words.
• Powell V Kempton Park Race Course
• D bets in an open air enclosure 
• Illegal to bet in house, office and room or other place. 
• House, office and Room are particular words & other place are general words so you presume other place to include four walls and a roof. 

• Expression of one thing implies the exlcusion of another. 
• Inhabitants of Sedley
• Rates could be charged on Land, Titles and Coal mines. This implies anyother mine (ie gold mine) could not be charged a rate. 

• Take the meaning of the words from the context in which it is written 
• Muir V Keay 
• To stay open late hours for entertainment purposes a lisence is needed 
• D kept his cafe open at night for public without license 
• Entertainment did not necesseraly mean music or theatre, it could include drinking coffee late at night 
• D IS FOUND GUILTY. 

Advantages

• Democratic- Leaves Law making to Parliament (The elected body)
• Respects Parliament Sovereingty- Parliament is the highest Law maker in the Land 

Disadvantages

• Produces absurd results- Whiteley V Chapell 
• Produces unjust results- London& NE Railway V Berriman 
• Does not always give affect to Parliaments intentions 
• Might be more than one dictionary meaning 
• presumes draftsmen always do their job properly

Advantages

• Prevents absurd/unjust outcomes (Re Sigworth) 
• More likely to result in what Parliament intended compared to the Literal Rule 

Disadvantages 

• No clear definition of what an absurd result it 
• Michael Zander described it as a "feeable parachuet" Escaping the problems of the literal rule, though the golden rule is still limited 
• Undemocratic- unelected judges can modify the law 

Advantages

• Avoids Absurd and unjust results 
• preferred approach by the Law commissions- they have lots of knowledge and expertise in the field of law- said it was a "rather more satisfactory approach"
• premotes flexibility- allows judges to decide on what parliament intended 

Disadvantages

• Too much power to unelected judges- undemocratic- judges interpret what Parliament thinks not what the law actually says
• Out of date- Heydons case dates back to 1584- hard to incorporate law from then into a modern society. 
• Not always easy to identify the mischief

Advantages 

• Consistent with Eu- brings the UK more into line with other European countries. 
• More likely to give affect to Parliaments intentions- 
• Lord Denning prefers the approach and said: prefers it as it is not destructive analysis- meaning the purposive approach does not critise the law and its makers, but rather finds the intentions of that law and implies it. 

Disadvantages

• Too much power to unelected Judges- undemocratic- Judges are left to interpret what they think Parliament intended rather than what the law acutally says 
•  Judges decisions can be based on public policy- this should be left to Parliament