Statutory Interpretation

Literal Rule
1. Plain Ordinary Meaning even if result is absurd
2. R v Judge of City of London Court - If the words of the act are clear, the court must follow them even if they lead to a manifest absurdity The court has nothing to do with the question whethere the legislature has committed absurdity.
3. Whitely V Chappell 1868 - 'any person entitled to vote'
4. Berriman - 'oiling' was not the same as 'relaying or repairing'
5. Advantages and Disadvantages
  1. Ad - consistant, clear, saves time, upholds parliamentary supremacy. stops unelected judges making law
  2. Dis - assumes no mistakes, absurd results/unfair, society changes, outdated statute, change in meaning of words, not always a plain meaning.
Golden Rule
1. Modification of Literal Rule - used when it would result in absurd or unfair outcome.
2. Narrow - R v Allen (1872) marry means two things. otherwise would never commit adultery
3. Wide - R v Sigsworth (1935) 'issue' killed mum but got inheritance.
4. Jones V DPP - Lord Reid for narrow, "you may not for any reason atatch to a statute a reason which the words of that provision cannot reasonable bear. If they are capable of more than one meaning then you can choose between those meanings but beyond that you cannot go.
5. Advantages and Disadvantages
  1. Ad - avoids absurd outcomes, drafting errors, sensible choice of meaning, sticks to parliaments words.
  2. Dis - uncertainty, appeals are high, time and money, limited use - rare, 'feeble parachute' zander.
Mischief Rule
1. Heydon's case - 1. common law before statute 2. Mischief and defect common law - what was wrong with the law. 3. what was the remedy that parliament intended. 4. true reason for the remedy. "suppress the mischief and advance the remedy"
2. Smith V Hughes (1960) - prostitutes "in a street or public place" stop the mischief, act to clean up streets doesn't matter where crime happened.
3. Eastborne Borough Council v Stirling - minicab driver "plying for hire in any street" he wasn't in street but customers were.
4. Royal College of Nursing v DHSS (1981) - wording of abortion act 1967 "terminated by a registered medical practictioner" nurse? 1972 - advancements. 3:2 aim was to make it safe for women. others said against parliamentary supremacy.
5. Advantages and Disadvantages
  1. Ad - avoids absurd or unfair, excludes drafting errors, promotes purpose of law, judges look back at gap in law, avoids re write, trying to fix problem
  2. Dis - inconsistency, judge made law - not parliamentary supremacy, own views, hard to advise clients, looks back at old law
The Purposive Approach
1. ? - extension of mischief, modern version, looks at intention, used by EU a lot
2. Smith (2000) - Adoption Act 1975, 'shall supply' had killed people, wasn't intended for mother to get hurt.
3. Quintavelle (2003) - 'embryo' only way was normal way then cnr came, used to need fertiliasation.
4. Advantages and Disadvantages
  1. Ad - broad outcomes, justice in individual cases, new tech, no new laws made, better than literal.
  2. Dis - judges are undermining p.s, law uncertain, lawyers can't advise, difficult to discover intention.
Rules of Language
1. ejusdem deneris rule
  1. list of words followed by general words, general limited to same type as list, must have 2 or more words.
  2. Hobbs V CG robertson (1970) - injured eyes, splintered brickwork, Construction (general provision) act regulation 1961, stone, concrete, slag or similar material, brick was soft.
2. expressio unius exclusio alterius
  1. list of words not followed by a general word, act only applies to those words.
  2. Tempest v Kilner (1846) - statute of frauds 1677, 'goods, wares and merchandise, but stocks and shares didn't count.
3. noscitur a sociis
  1. looked at in context with the other words of the act, a word is known by the company it keeps,
  2. Inland revenue commisioners v frere (1965) - 'Interest annualities and other annual interest"
Presumptions
1. Crown is not bound by any statute unless is expressly says so.
2. legislation does not apply retrospectively.
3. against change in common law - it will apply unless stated otherwise. Leach v R (1912) - wife could be made to give evidence under criminal evidence act 1898.
  1. now can under s80 of police and criminal evidence act
4. mens rea is required in criminal cases - sweet v parsley (1970) - concerned with the management of premises that were being used for smoking weed. didnt have mens rea (didn''t know about it)

Siguiente

Statutory Interpretation

Descripción

Resumen del Recurso

Similar

	Creado por Erin Ashby hace casi 10 años