Statutory Interpretation

-SI considers the way that judges interpret acts (statues) made by Parliament

-Why we need SI
.statues may be unclear because of
-Broad terms words used in an act to cover several possible meaning
-Ambiguity a word may have two or more meaning which do they use
-drafting error during law making Parliamentary stages, an error may have been
made in drafting a bill sometimes occurs if the bill is amended and passed back
and forth between houses several times before being passed as an act
.certain aids are sometimes built into statues to help with interpretation eg, The
Theft Act 68, S.1defines theft & S.2 defines the key words

-The three rules should judges use a literal approach to interpreting law (i.e. take
the word of a statue literally) or a purposive approach (i.e. look at the purpose of the
act) judges cant agree on which approach is the best and over the years have
devised the following rules
.literal, golden and mischief

-Literal rule where judges interpret acts according to their plain, ordinary and
natural meaning
.preserves the idea that the judges job is to apply the law as set out by Parliament
.words in an act may have more than one meaning (and so be unclear) court may
be unsure which to use and may end up using a meaning which results in an
absurd/harsh decision that is unfair
.LNER v Berriman a railway track engineer was killed whilst carrying out track
maintenance and there was no look out man his widow made a claim under fatal
accidents act (makes remedy for those who as a result of having no look out man,
are killed/injured whilst repairing or relaying the line_ - claim failed as Mr B was not
repairing or relaying the line, he was simply maintaining it.

-The golden rule where a judge interprets a word/phrase in order to avoid an
absurd conclusion
.helps the court put into practise what Parliament really wants
.very limited in its use and not used that often
.is it the judges role to decide what an absurd conclusion is
.R v Allen (1872) where Mr Allen was charged and found guilty, avoiding an
absurd conclusion of him getting away with bigamy

-The mischief rule oldest rule, based in the decision in Heydons case in 1584
states that judges should ask four Qs
.what was the common law before the act
.what was the mischief (problem) could be a loophole/gap
.what remedy has Parliament intended to provide
.what is the true reason for Parliament adopting the remedy
-with the four answers the court should then interpret the act in such a way that the
gap/loophole is covered
.Smith v Hughes (1960) where a group of prostitutes were charged for soliciting
from a house

-The purposive approach most modern approach and involved judges interpreting
the act in the light of what the purpose of the whole act is, not just considering the
words in isolation
.tries to encompass the intentions of Parliament
.much wider and holistic approach most EU countries use this approach when
interpreting their own leg
.an Eng law passed in light of an EU law should be interpreted using this approach
.judges faced with a Q of EU law in their courtroom need to use approach
.Human Fertilisation Act 1990 states that an embryo is a live embryo where
fertilisation is complete
-Purpose of the act to legislate for situations where a couple couldnt conceive
naturally
.in 03 new scientific developments meant there was another way of creating an
embryo known as closing (doesnt involve fertilisation) is this still an embryo with
the act? HOL said it was, saying it was their job to interpret and give effect to
Parliaments intentions

-Both intrinsic and extrinsic aids can be used by judges when interpreting acts

-Intrinsic aids inward looking matters contained within the act itself used to make
the meaning clearer, eg, theft act 68

-Extrinsic aids outward looking matters outside the act a no of external sources
have always been accepted as an aid to interpretation
.previous acts that have dealt with the same topic
.dictionaries of the time in which the act was passed