English Legal System
Statutory Interpretation
1
Statutory Interpretation
Who interprets the Statues? Why?

a) Constitutional role of Judiciary is to
“apply the Law”.

c) Creating Law is the Parliament’s Job

Note : The above of course ignores the potential
for judicial creativity, in relation to the operation
of the common law and judicial precedent & the
measure of discretion and creative powere in the
manner in which they interpret legislation.
2
Statutory Interpretation
Difficulties with Interpretations
sometimes arise as a result of the
drafting





1) draftsman may refrain from using
certain words that he or she regards as
implied,.or obvious.
2) draftsman may use broad term..e.g
transport - to cover need for generality
3) Ambiguous words may be used
4) There may be unforseeable
developments
5) Words may have been left out by
mistake
3
Statutory Interpretation
Methods of Interpretations
1)
Literal Approach (restrictive)
: Judges should primarily look at the
words of the statues in order to
construe the meaning.
2)
Purposive Approach (permissive)
: Powers to look beyond mere words
and to look at the reason for its
enactment.
4
Statutory Interpretation
Methods of Interpretations
1)
Literal Approach (restrictive)
English legislation is drafted with the
intent that the literal approach would
be used.
Unlike European legislation.
Shah V Barnet London Borough (1983)
: The literal approach should be used
unless a clear statement of the purpose
is mentioned in the statute and
reference is made to extrinsic materials.
5
Statutory Interpretation
Methods of Interpretations
1)
Purposive approach
Pickstone V Freemans (1988) HL
Its permitted to use the purposive
approach especially if European
community laws are interpreted and if
an English stature has to be referred in
the light of European legislation.
6
Statutory Interpretation
Rules of Interpretation : Must be done
in the light of the Human Right Act
1998.(ECHR)
Thus powers of interpretation become wider
then usual
1) literal Rule What the legislation actually
says (not what it might mean)
2) The golden Rule If application of the literal
rule might produce absurd result
3) The Mischief Rule What it intended to correct.
7
Statutory Interpretation
Literal Rule :







What legislation actually says.
Give words in the legislation its literal
meaning. Simple words..everyday meaning.
Even if it results in an unjust or undesirable
outcome.
Follow the wishes of parliament ?
Literal meaning from dictionary or legal
meaning?
Fisher V Bell (1961) : The word offer for sale,
was interpreted as “offer” in the law of
contract.
Patridge V Crittenden(1968) : Same
interpretation for the word offer in statute
8
Statutory Interpretation
Literal Rule :

More problems
Literal meaning of words ?
R V Maginnis (1987)
D charged with Misuse of Drugs Act
1971,.,having drugs in possesion”with intent
to supply them”.
He claimed that since he had intentions to
return the drugs to a friend who had left them
in his car, he could not be guilty of supplying
as charged.
H/L : all the lords were looking for the best
literal (dictionary) meaning to the word
supplying.
9
Statutory Interpretation
Golden rule :
River Wear Comrs V Adamson(1877)
as per Lord Blackburn :
“ We are to take the statute and construe it
all together giving the words their ordinary
signification, unless, when so applied they
produce produce an inconsistensy or an
absurdity or inconvenience…”
10
Statutory Interpretation
Golden rule : 2 versions
1)
Narrow meaning :
Adler V George (1964)
D, charged under the official secrets act 1920, with the
obstruction “in the vicinity” of a prohibited area,
whereas she had carried out the obstruction “inside the
area”.
The court decided not to restrict itself to the less
absurd meaning and found D guilty.
2)
Wider meaning :
R V Sigsworth(1935)
Only one possible meaning but choose not to accept it.
But the court cannot ignore or replace the legislative
rule just because it disagrees with the provision.
11
Statutory Interpretation
Mischief Rule
The most flexible rule : yet the following test to apply:
Heydon’s Case (1584)
The following must be considered before the mischief rule
can be applied to statutory interpretation :
1) What was the common law before the passing of the
statue?
2) What was the mischief in the law which the common law
did not adequately deal with?
3) What remedy for the mischief had parliament intended to
provide?
4) What was the reason for the parliament adopting the
remedy?
12
Statutory Interpretation
Mischief Rule
Heydon’s Case : Look at the purpose of the act.
Note : It was the practice at 1584, to cite in the preamble of
legislation the purpose for its enactment, including the
mischief at which it was aimed.
Corkery V Carpenter (1950)
A man was found guilty of being drunk in charge of a
“carriage” although he was in fact only in charge of a
bicycle.
Royal College of Nursing V DHSS (1981)
Held : medical induction to labour is under the supervision
of nursing staff was lawful : It was held that the medical
induction of labour by the nurse’s was legally done by a
“medical practitioner”.
13
Statutory Interpretation
Aids to Construction
Secondary aids to construction :
1) intrinsic assistance
From the statute itself,…preamble, long title
headings,..etc.
14
Statutory Interpretation
Aids to Construction
2)
Extrinsic assistance
Reference to sources outside the Act.
E.g. Dictionaries, textbooks, earlier statutes
See Interpretation Act 1978
e.g. male refers to female also etc.
Bill of Parliament
Law commission reports
See Pepper V Hart H/L
Held : courts could look at Hansard’s report of
parliamentary proceedings to look at mischief to be
corrected.
15
Statutory Interpretation
Aids to Construction
Pepper V Hart
followed in the case of
Three Rivers District Council V Bank of
England(1996) :
:in short, reference may be made to the Hansard
to find out the purpose behind the legislation only
if the literal and golden rule cannot be applied.
i.e if literally it would be absurd or the statute is
ambiguous.
16
Statutory Interpretation
Presumptions
Notes : The following presumptions may be used
in addition to the rules of interpretation.
(But presumptions can be rebutted of course)

1) Against the alteration of the common law, unless
expressly stated.

2) That a mental element is required for criminal
offences.
See Sweet V Parsley (1970).HL Premises for
smoking cannabis. Dangerous drugs act 1965
3) Against retrospective effect of new law.


4)
Presumption against deprivation of liberty
17
Statutory Interpretation
Presumptions
Cases on mental element presumption :
Sweet V Parsley (1970) HL : as per Lord Reid,
“ When a section is silent as to mens rea…there is a
presumption that we must read in words requiring mens
rea”
But see :
R V Hussain (1981) CA : Held : Possessing of firearm
stict liability offence, where mens reas was not required
to be proved.
R V Brandish (1990) Held: possession of prohibited
weapon (canister of CS gas)..was strict liability offence.
18
Statutory Interpretation
Against retrospective effect of new law

Laws cannot be applied
retrospectively.

Exception :
Statutes may be passed that can do
that but it must be specified clearly
19
Statutory Interpretation
The War Damage Act 1965
was passed specifically to overrule the decision of
the House of Lords in
Burmah Oil Co Ltd V The Lord Advocate(1965)
Facts : The oil company installations in Burma, which was
then a British Colony had been destroyed by the British
Forces in 1942, in order to prevent them being captured
by Japanese forces.
The co. that was registered in Scotland sued the crown
for compensation.
Held :
HL held that the govn should pay.
The statute was passed to overrule the
House of Lords and to stop the payment
of the compensation.
20
Statutory Interpretation
The war crimes act 1991
This act allowed the attorney general to authorise
criminal proceedings for homicide committed in
Germany or German occupied territory during the
second world war.
The prosecution can be anyone in UK, regardless
of nationality at the time of the alleged offence.
21
Statutory Interpretation
Presumption that it does not apply to the
crown
Unless stated clearly the legislation would not apply
to the crown
Presumption against breaking international
law
22
Statutory Interpretation
In March 2001, The Law commission of England
and Wales, raised the prospect of a second trial
of the men accused of murdering the black
teenager Stephen Lawrence, by calling the
“double Jeopardy” law to be relaxed for murder
cases, where there is compelling evidence.
So, if the CPS wants to bring fresh prosecutions
against the suspects it could do so, if the
parliament passes the law.
23
Statutory Interpretation
Presumption against deprivation of Liberty
The courts interpret statutes on an assumption
that it could not have intended to deprive the
liberty of anyone unless specifically stated.
R v Secretary of State for Home deparment ex p
Khawaja (1983)
HL Held : The immigration act in the case did not have
the effect of placing the burden of proof on an immigrant
to show that the decision of the home office to detain him
was unjustified.
24
Statutory Interpretation



Presumption that words should be interpreted
taking their meaning from the context in which
they are used :
There are three sub rules to the above.
noscitur a sociis
e.g. a chain of words should be interpreted in
relation to each other
ejusdem generis
e.g horses, cattle, sheep and other animals
see Powell v Kempton Park racecourse(1899)
expressio unius exclusio alterius
If contains list of words, then whatever is not
stated,.. is excluded
25