P5: Outline the rules for Statutory Interpretation Judges are highly qualified professionals that enforce the law in court while dealing with cases but sometimes, judges need help understanding the law that has been put in place by Parliament. Statutory interpretation helps judges in court understand a piece of delegated legislation when the words are unclear. There are a few reasons why the meaning of an Act may be uncertain: •If during the making of the Act, Parliament failed to notice any error in the wordings of the draft.
• If the words used have a very general meaning and can be put into any situation e. . in the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 one of the phrases says “any dog of the type known as the pit bull terrier”. The word ‘type’ is a very general word. • If the words are ambiguous and has two or more meaning. • If the meaning of the words have changed over time due to social and technological changes e. g. In Royal College of Nursing V DHSS 1981 the term “medical practitioner” now includes nurses or midwives whole help with abortion and child birth. • If the Act is out-dated and does not cover new situation. Intrinsic and extrinsic aids.
When judges are interpreting a piece of delegated legislation, they have a certain level of assistance which makes it easier for them to understand the law. These are known as intrinsic and extrinsic aids. Intrinsic aids Internal or intrinsic aids can be information or explanations that are found in the Act which may help the judge understand the Act. The long title and the short title of the Act can be considered because it gives an idea of what Parliament meant when the Law was made. This was used by the court in Cornwall County Council v Baker [2003] to confirm the purpose of the Protection of Animals (Amendments) Act 2000.
The preface of Act could also provide a degree of explanation for the judge. Older laws have a piece of text at the start of each Act which gives the resins why Parliament created the Act. Headings and side notes could also be referred to as they are usually added when the Act is being drafted and can give further help in understanding the piece of legislation. In other for judges to understand what Parliament meant when they were creating an Act, they The literal rule The literal rule means when courts give words their literal, plain meaning. When a judge is using Statutory Interpretation, this is the first approach the judge takes.
An example is Whitely v Chapell [1868] the accused used the vote of a dead man but an Act made it an offence to ‘impersonate any person entitled to vote’. The wordings of the Act implied that the person had to be alive in order to vote which meant the case was invalid. Another example is the London & North Eastern Railway Co v Berriman 1946 where a rail worker was killed on site while working and no lookout man was provided. His A Law said that a lookout man should be provided for all workers who are relaying and repairing so they can be warned of incoming trains but if none is provided, relatives are entitled to a compensation.
Unfortunately, the guy was doing a maintenance job and the words ‘relaying’ and ‘repairing’ did not count as maintenance because the words were given their literal meaning. The Golden rule The Golden rule is adapted from the literal rule. Judge are still required to find the literal meaning of words but the golden rule allows then to make an interpretation that does not lead to unjust decisions. The narrow application of the golden rule is used when a word is ambiguous and has more than one meaning. The judge picks the meaning that is logical and fair.
This form of the golden rule was used in Rv Allen where a man was charged with adultery. The wordings of the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861 had two interpretation one of which will let the man go free and anyone else who was accused of said crime. The court decided to go with the second meaning as it was more logical and would avoid unjust decisions. The guy was found guilty. The wider application of the golden rule allows a judge move away from making an unjust decision if there is only one meaning. In Adler v George 1964 the Official Secrets Act 1920 made it an offence to be seen ‘in the vicinity of a prohibited place’.
The accused was arrested inside the building so argued that ‘in the vicinity’ does not apply. However the judge decide that ‘in the vicinity’ means both inside and around the building so the case was upheld. The Mischief rule. This rule gives the judge more freedom to make responsible decisions. The court is required to look at what the Act was before it was changed. This way it tell them what mischief or gap the new Act is trying to cove. It is the duty of the court to then interp ret the Act in such a way that it corrects or covers that gap. The rule was created by Heydon’s case 1584 1.
What was the common law before the making of the Act? 2. What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide? 3. What remedy Parliament hath resolved and appointed to cure the disease of the Commonwealth. 4. The true reason of the remedy; and then the office of the Judges is to make such construction as shall suppress the mischief and advance the remedy. What was the common law before the making of the Act? What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide? What remedy Parliament hath resolved and appointed to cure the disease of the Commonwealth.
The true reason of the remedy; and then the office of the Judges is to make such construction as shall suppress the mischief and advance the remedy. ” (http:// www. open. edu/openlearn/society/the-law/judges-and-the-law/ content-section-6. 4) When using this rule, judges have to consider the following things before making a decision. An example is in Smith v Hughes 1960 where a group of prostitutes where charged under the Offences Act 1959 which made it an offence to ask for sex in a public place but the prostitutes were not in public places. They were on balconies and leaning out of windows so the public could still see them.
The court decided to use the mischief rule saying their activities can be placed under the mischief rule as the public could still see them but under the literal definition, they were on private land and would not have been found guilty. Another example is Corkery v Carpenter 1951 where a guy was riding his bicycle while he was drunk. The Licensing Act 1872 made it an offence to drink and drive while motorway. The court used the mischief rule and said that riding a bicycle while drunk can also be classed as an offence because he was a danger to himself and pedestrians.
Although it gives the judge more freedom, there are also boundaries. In jones y Wrotham 1980 the judge gave conditions under which the rule could be used. He said that if the damage that the Act would cause is seen clearly, if it looks like Parliament has ignored it, and if the judge is sure that additional words would make a difference. The Purposive approach With the mischief rule, the court looks back to the similar laws passed before the Act was passed to find the gap in the law that Parliament was trying to fill. The purposive approach however focuses on what Parliament planned when passing the new law.
An example is in Pepper v Hart 1992 where The House of Lords had to decide if a teacher at a private school had to pay tax on the bonus he received in the form of reduced school fees. The teacher wanted to depend on a statement in Hansard made at the time the Finance Act was passed. The minister gave what condition could allow a person not to pay tax. Previously the courts were not allowed to refer to Hansard but since they could in this case, they used the purposive approach and said that he had to pay tax on his bonus.