Statutory Interpretation

Statutory Interpretation
Objectives
• Explain what is meant by the intention of Parliament.
• Identify the problems that can arise when interpreting statutes.
• Explain the rules/ approaches of Statutory interpretation and apply to given cases.
• Explain the aids and presumptions of statutory interpretation.
• Critically assess the rules of statutory interpretation and suggest reforms.
• Discuss the relationship between statutory interpretation, EU law and precedent.

Statutory Interpretation
• What factors may cause the courts problems when

interpreting statutes?
• What is meant by the intention of Parliament?
• Interpretation Act 1978.

Approaches to Statutory Interpretation
In small groups give definitions for the following words:
• Vehicle
• Public place
• Consume
Approaches – The Literal Rule
Literal rule – gives all the words in a statute their ordinary and
natural meaning. Under this rule the literal meaning must be
followed, even if the result is absurd:
Lord Esher stated in R v City of London Court Judge (1892):
‘If the words of an Act are clear, you must follow them, even
though they lead to a manifest absurdity. The court has nothing to
do with the question of whether the legislature has committed an
absurdity’.
Examples of the literal rule in use are:
• Whitely v Chapell(1868)
• London & North Eastern Railway Co v Berriman (1946)
• Fisher v Bell (1961)
• Lees v Secretary of State (1985).
Advantages of the literal rule
• Respects parliamentary sovereignty

• Gives the courts a restricted role.
Disadvantages of the literal rule
• Zander in The Law-Making Process describes the literal approach as:

‘mechanical, divorced from the realties of the use of language and from the
aspirations of the human beings concerned…in that sense it is irresponsible’.
• Can lead to injustice and absurdity.

R (on the application of Haw) v Secretary of State for the

Home Department (2006):
The Court of Appeal refused to apply a literal approach to a new

piece of legislation as they felt it would not reflect the intention
of Parliament.
Approaches- The Golden Rule
If the literal rule gives an absurd result which parliament could not have intended, then AND
ONLY THEN the judge can substitute reasonable meaning in the light of the statute as a whole.
‘The
‘Thegrammatical
grammaticaland andordinary
ordinarysense
sense
ofofthe word is to be adhered to, unless
the word is to be adhered to, unless
that
thatwould
wouldlead
leadtotosome
someabsurdity…in
absurdity…in
which
which case the grammaticaland
case the grammatical and
ordinary
ordinary sense of the words maybe
sense of the words may be
modified so as to avoid that absurdity
modified so as to avoid that absurdity
and
andinconsistency,
inconsistency,but butno
nofurther.’
further.’
Lord Wensleydale, Grey v Pearson (1857)

Examples of the golden rule in use:
• R v Allen (1872).
• Madox v Storer (1963).
• Adler v George (1964).
• Sweet v Parsley (1970).
• Inco Europe Ltd v First Choice Distribution (2000).

Advantages of the golden rule:
• Can prevent absurdity and injustice caused by the literal rule.
Disadvantages of the golden rule:
• The rule provides no clear meaning of what is an absurd result.

Approaches - The Mischief Rule
Laid down in Heydon’s Case (1584), provides that judges should

consider 3 factors:
1. What the law was before the statute was passed;

2. What problem, or ‘mischief’, the statute was trying to remedy;
3. What remedy Parliament was trying to provide.
Examples of the mischief rule in use:
• Smith v Hughes (1960).

• Elliott v Grey (1960).
• Royal College of Nursing (1981).
Advantages of the mischief rule:
• Avoids injustice.
• Promotes flexibility.
Disadvantages of the mischief rule:
• Outdated, approach may be less appropriate now that the legislative

process is different to Heydon’s case (1584).
The Purposive Approach
Lord Denning in Magor and St Melons Rural District Council v Newport

Corporation(1952):
‘We
‘Wedodonot
notsitsithere
heretotopull
pullthe
thelanguage
languageofof
Parliament
Parliamentto topieces
piecesand
andmake
makenonsense
nonsenseof of
it…we
it…wesit
sithere
hereto tofind
findout
outthe
theintention
intentionofof
Parliament
Parliamentand andcarry
carryititout,
out,and
andwe wedo
dothis
this
better
betterby
byfilling
fillingininthe
thegaps
gapsand
andmaking
makingsense
sense
of
ofthe
theenactment
enactmentthan thanbybyopening
openingititup
upto
to
destructive
destructiveanalysis’
analysis’
Aids to Interpretation
Intrinsic Aids:
• The statute itself
• Explanatory notes – since 1999
• Rules of language :
Ejusdem generis – words of the same kind
Expressio unius est exclusion alterius – express mention of one

thing implies the exclusion of another
Noscitur a sociis – a word draws its meaning from those around it

Presumptions:
1. Statutes do not change the common law.
2. Legislation does not operate retrospectively.
3. Laws which create crimes should be interpreted in favour of

the defendant.
Extrinsic Aids:
• Dictionaries and textbooks
• Reports e.g. Law Commission. In Black Clawson International v

Papierwerke Waldhof-Aschaffenburg(1975) the House of Lords stated that
official reports may be considered as evidence of the pre-existing state of the
law and the mischief the legislation was intended to deal with.
• Historical setting
• Treaties
• Other statutes/ cases
• Previous practice.
Extrinsic Aids:
Human Rights Act 1998 – The Act incorporates into UK law the
European Convention on Human Rights. Section 3 requires that :
‘So far as it is possible to do so legislation must be read and given

effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights.’
Extrinsic Aids:
Human Rights Act 1998 –Section 2 requires the courts take into
account any relevant judgments from the European Court of
Human Rights, but they are not bound by them.
If impossible to find an interpretation which is compatible with

the Convention the court can issue a declaration if incompatibility
under section 4.
‘to ignore Hansard would be to
grope in the dark for the
meaning of an Act without
Extrinsic Aids: switching on the light ’.
• Hansard –Davis v Johnson(1978)

• Pepper v Hart(1993),note the dissenting judgment of Lord
Mackay
• Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (No. 2) (1996)

Lord Denning
• R v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport, and

the Regions, ex parte Spath
Holme Ltd ( 2001)
• Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry ( 2003).

European Legislation
Under Article 267 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Court
of Justice of the European Union is the supreme court for the interpretation of
EU law.
Lord Denning in Bulmer v Bollinger (1974) said that when interpreting EU law
the English courts should take the same approach as the European Court.
‘No longer must they examine the words in meticulous detail…they must look
to the purpose or intent. To quote the words of the European Court in Da Costa they
must divine the spirit of the Treaty and gain inspiration from it. If they find a gap
they must fill it…..So must we do the same.’
Lord Denning
Effect of EU Membership on Statutory
Interpretation
Growth of a more purposive approach & effect of S2(4)
European Communities Act 1972 – all parliamentary legislation
must be construed and applied in accordance with Union law:
R v Secretary of State for transport, ex parte Factortame

(1990).
Statutory Interpretation and Case Law
• Once the courts have interpreted a statute, that

interpretation becomes part of case law in the same way as
any other judicial decision, and is therefore subject to the
rules of precedent.
Activities
Welcome to the House of Lords:
In small groups apply the rules of Statutory interpretation to

given cases.
Useful Websites
Hansard is available at:
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/pahansard.htm

Statutory Interpretation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Statutory Interpretation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Statutory Interpretation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Statutory Interpretation

• Explain what is meant by the intention of Parliament.

• Identify the problems that can arise when interpreting statutes.

• Explain the aids and presumptions of statutory interpretation.

• Critically assess the rules of statutory interpretation and suggest reforms.

• Discuss the relationship between statutory interpretation, EU law and precedent.

• What factors may cause the courts problems when

• What is meant by the intention of Parliament?

• Interpretation Act 1978.

In small groups give definitions for the following words:

Lord Esher stated in R v City of London Court Judge (1892):

Examples of the literal rule in use are:

Advantages of the literal rule

• Respects parliamentary sovereignty

Disadvantages of the literal rule

• Zander in The Law-Making Process describes the literal approach as:

• Can lead to injustice and absurdity.

R (on the application of Haw) v Secretary of State for the

The Court of Appeal refused to apply a literal approach to a new

Lord Wensleydale, Grey v Pearson (1857)

Examples of the golden rule in use:

• Madox v Storer (1963).

• Adler v George (1964).

• Sweet v Parsley (1970).

• Inco Europe Ltd v First Choice Distribution (2000).

Advantages of the golden rule:

• Can prevent absurdity and injustice caused by the literal rule.

Disadvantages of the golden rule:

• The rule provides no clear meaning of what is an absurd result.

Laid down in Heydon’s Case (1584), provides that judges should

1. What the law was before the statute was passed;

Examples of the mischief rule in use:

• Smith v Hughes (1960).

Advantages of the mischief rule:

Disadvantages of the mischief rule:

• Outdated, approach may be less appropriate now that the legislative

Lord Denning in Magor and St Melons Rural District Council v Newport

• The statute itself

• Explanatory notes – since 1999

Ejusdem generis – words of the same kind

Expressio unius est exclusion alterius – express mention of one

Noscitur a sociis – a word draws its meaning from those around it

1. Statutes do not change the common law.

2. Legislation does not operate retrospectively.

3. Laws which create crimes should be interpreted in favour of

• Dictionaries and textbooks

• Reports e.g. Law Commission. In Black Clawson International v

• Other statutes/ cases

‘So far as it is possible to do so legislation must be read and given

If impossible to find an interpretation which is compatible with

• Hansard –Davis v Johnson(1978)

• Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (No. 2) (1996)

• R v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport, and

• Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry ( 2003).

R v Secretary of State for transport, ex parte Factortame

• Once the courts have interpreted a statute, that

Welcome to the House of Lords:

In small groups apply the rules of Statutory interpretation to

Hansard is available at: