Statutory_Interpretation_Questions

Statutory Interpretation – Full mark Answers JUNE 2012 EXAM (07) – Outline internal (intrinsic) aids to interpretation and one of the rules of language. Intrinsic (or internal) aids are those aids that can be found within the Act itself. They are generally used by all judges, but may be of limited help. They include long and short titles, preamble, schedules, headings and interpretation sections. The courts have developed some rules which apply in only certain linguistic situations. One of these rules is ‘ejusdem generis’ – this is where a list of specific words in an Act is followed by general words, and the general words are limited to the same kind as the list. Powell v Kempton Park Racecourse (1899) is an example of where this rule has been applied. The Betting Act 1853 made it an offence to keep a house, office, room or other place for the purposes of betting. The House of Lords had to decide if the statute applied to Tattersall's enclosure at Kempton Park Racecourse. The court applied the ejusdem generis rule and held that the other items mentioned in the statute related to places indoors whereas Tattersall's enclosure was outside. There was thus no offence committed. (08) – Describe the golden rule of statutory interpretation. The golden rule is an extension of the literal rule, which is where a judge gives the words their ‘plain, ordinary or literal meaning’ regardless of whether the result is sensible or fair. Naturally, this rule is unsuitable for some cases, so the golden rule allows the words to be given a more appropriate meaning. There are two applications the golden rule. The first is the narrow approach, which would be used when the words have more than one meaning and the better meaning is chosen. An example of where this has been used is in Adler v George (1964), where ‘in the vicinity of’ could include ‘in’. The second application is the broader approach, which is when the words actually have only one meaning but the judges do not want to apply it for policy reasons. An example of where this approach was used is Re Sigsworth (1935), where a son was thus prevented from inheriting from the mother he had murdered. (09) – Briefly discuss advantages and disadvantages of the golden rule. Advantages of the golden rule are that it can prevent absurd results that could have occurred because of the literal rule, such as that of ‘Whiteley v Chappell’ (1868), where a man would have been legally allowed to impersonate a dead person to vote, it can prevent results that would be regarded as an injustice that could have occurred because of the literal rule, such as that of LNER v Berriman (1946), where a man was killed and his wife was not allowed compensation because the man did not die of a specific cause named in the statute, and it can punish Parliament by making it pass another Act that overrides the previous ones that would have resulted in results of these kind. Disadvantages of the golden rule are that it depends on and gives too much control to each judge to decide what is an absurdity or repugnant result, which can lead to inconsistencies as each judge might have different opinions of what such results would be. The golden rule can also be quite undemocratic in nature. JANUARY 2012 EXAM (07) – Outline the purposive approach to statutory interpretation and outline one of the rules of language. The purposive approach is a more modern approach to statutory interpretation, and has been influenced my membership of the EU as it is widely used in EU law. It is simply giving effect to what the judges see as the purpose of the Act rather than concentrating on words as in RCN v DHSS (1981). Judges favouring the literal rule say that the purposive rule is too creative and ignores clear words. More judges though are now using the approach. For instance it was applied in R (Haw) v Secretary of State for the Home Department 2006. The courts have developed some rules which apply only in certain linguistic situations. An example of one of these rules is ‘expressio unius est exclusion alterius’ – this is where the express mention of one thing excludes another of a different kind. Tempest v Kilner (1846) is an example of where this rule has been applied. (08) – Explain the literal rule of statutory interpretation. This is where a judge gives the words in statues or delegated legislation their ‘plain, ordinary or literal meaning’ from a standard dictionary, to respect parliamentary sovereignty. This rule is used, irrespective of whether the result would be sensible or fair, such as in ‘Whiteley v Chappell’ (1868), and ‘LNER v Berriman’ (1946). (09) – Briefly discuss advantages and disadvantages of the literal rule. One of the main advantages of the literal rule is that, if able to be used properly, can ensure certain, consistent results and avoid unjust or absurd ones. As Lord Esher once said, you must follow the words of an Act if they are clear, even if they ‘lead to a manifest absurdity’. This is one of the literal rule – words must be given as their ‘plain, ordinary or literal’ meaning, and this rigidity can create problems surrounding the outcome of the case. For example absurd results, such as in ‘Whiteley v Chappell’ (1868), or unjust results, such as in ‘LNER v Berriman’ (1946), can arise. Another disadvantage is that certain assumptions have to be made to ensure this rule can work efficiently. For example, it must be assumed that the Act in question has been written perfectly and that there are no words that can have more than one meaning – otherwise, this rule cannot be used and other rules such as the Golden rule must be used, which can ultimately result in inconsistencies in results.