Chapter 4 Statutory Interpretation

4.1 The common law rules of interpretation

Traditional rule
1.​ Literal Rule (ensure certainty)

-​ Give words their plain, ordinary or literal (dictionary) meaning

-​ Whiteley v Chappell
-​ When the defendant pretended to be a person who had died and
voted,the court applied the Literal Rule and held that he was not guilty
because a dead person is not entitled to vote.
-​ London and North Eastern Railway Co. v Berriman (1946)
-​ Mr Berriman was killed during the ‘oiling’ of the railway. The Fatal
Accident Act stated the words ‘relaying’ and ‘repairing’ so Mrs
Berriman failed to claim.
-​ Fisher v Bell (1961)
-​ Display of the flick-knife is not ‘offer’, so the shopkeeper had
committed no offence

2.​ Golden Rule (avoid absurdity / when there is more than 1 or unclear meaning)

-​ Narrow application – choose between the possible meanings

-​ Adler v George (1964)
-​ The defendant argued that ‘in the vicinity’ of a prohibited place
is not in the prohibited place, The Divisional Court found the
defendant guilty, the words read as in or in the vicinity of
prohibited place.
-​ R v Allen (1872)
-​ Defendant tried to marry again while still in married, the
second marriage was void, the word ‘shall marry’ being
interpreted as going through a ceremony of marriage, still
guilty

-​ Wider application – modify the words even having one clear meaning
-​ Re Sigsworth (1935)
-​ A son murdered his mother, the murderer son would have
inherited as ‘issue’ - cannot benefit from crime - the court
modified the words - ‘issue’ would not be entitled to inherit
where they had killed the deceased.
 3.​ Mischief Rule
-​ Judge will recall what is the problem wanted to solve when the particular law
was made
-​ Heydon’s Case - the court should consider:
-​ 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 was the remedy the Parliament hath resolved and appointed to
cure the disease of the commonwealth?
-​ What was the true reason for the remedy?
-​ Coates v Crown Prosecution Service (2011)
-​ The judge interprets the main aim of Highways Act 1835 and the Road
Traffic Act 1988 is to clear the footpath and ensure the safety of
walkers. So,the defendant was guilty as a scooter is not a motor car
but it is a carriage.
-​ Elliot v Grey (1960)
-​ The judge interprets that the aim of Road Traffic Act 1930 is to ensure
road users were compensated for injuries caused by hazards on the
road.

Modern approach
4.​ Purposive Approach - judges will look into the gaps of old law and also decide based
on what they believe Parliament meant to achieve
-​ Lord Denning uses Purposive Approach in Magor and St. Mellons v Newport
Corporation (1950)
-​ Quintavalle Case (2003)
-​ HOL decided that organisms created through CNR also fall within the
definition of ‘embryo’ in Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990
as the aim of the act is to govern all matters regarding the embryo no
matter the way it is produced.
-​ R v Registrar-General, ex parte Smith (1990)
-​ Based on the Adoption Act, Registrar-General had to supply
information, as the Act uses the phrase ‘shall supply’. To prevent the
risk of Mr Smith's from discovering his natural mother identity, the
court ruled that the Registrar-General did not have to supply any
information
-​ Jones v Tower Boot Co. (1997)
-​ A young black worker was abused in the workplace by his fellow
workers. He sued the employers, under the Act of the Race Relations
Act 1976, the employers argued that the abuse was not part of their
job and fell outside the ‘course of their employment’. The COA ruled
that the Parliament’s intention when passing this law was to eliminate
discrimination in the workplace, the employers were held liable.
Advantages & disadvantages of the rules and approaches
4.2 Rules of language

1.​ The ejusdem generis rule

-​ there is a list of specific words followed by some general words, then the
general words are limited to the same kind of items as the specific words (the
court will also consider the words in the same category even though there is a
specific word.)
-​ **There must be at least 2 specific words in the list before the general words
words for this rule to operate
-​ Hobbs v CG Robertson Ltd (1970)
-​ Brick was not ejusdem generis with slag, stone or concrete as all
those materials are hard and brick was soft. The workman failed to
claim.

2.​ Expressio unius exclusio alterius (the mention of one thing exclude others)
-​ Where there is a list of specific words which is not followed by general
words, then the Act applies only to the items in the list. (the statute have only
specific word and no general word, court will not apply the statute if the item
is not covered is the statute)
-​ Tempest v Kilner (1846)
-​ Statute of Frauds 1677 only lists down the specific words
‘goods,wares and merchandise’ that requires a contract for the sales
so ‘stock and shares’ were not caught by the statute.

3.​ Noscitur a sociis

-​ The words must be looked at in context and interpreted accordingly
(words looked in whole sentences)
-​ Involves looking at the same words in same or other sections of the Act
-​ Inland Revenue Commissioners v Frere (1965)
-​ Words in the same action were important where the section set out
rules for ‘interest, annuities or other annual interest’. The word
‘interest’ can mean any interest paid, but with the words ‘other annual
interest’ in the section, it was decided that interest only meant annual
interest.
-​ Bromley London Borough Council v Greater London Council (1982)
-​ The House of Lords looked at the whole Act, and considered another
section to reach a better decision.
4.3- 4.4 Intrinsic and extrinsic aids to interpretation (to find out parliament intention)

Intrinsic Aids (in the statute) Extrinsic Aids (other resource)

Long title - explained briefly by Hansard

parliament -​ Official report of Parliamentary debate on the
making of Act
-​ Lord Denning attack on the banning of referring
to Hansard in Davis v Johnson (1979)
-​ Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart (1993) -
HOL accept that Hansard could be used in
limited way
1.​ When legislation is ambiguous or lead
to an absurdity
2.​ Material used consist of many
statement by a minister
3.​ If Hansard consists of a clear statement
of the introduction of this legislation and
the references of Hansard give better
understanding.

Preamble 前言 in older statute Reports of law reform bodies

-​ Black Clawson case 1975
-​ To discover the mischief or gap in the law that
the legislation based on the report was
designed to deal with
-​ Legislation drafted following a law reform is
likely to follow the recommendation of the
reform body and its reasoning

Heading before the group of International Conventions

statute -​ Fothergill v Monarch Airline Ltd (1980)
-​ The original convention should be
considered, as the true meaning might
have been lost
-​ English court - consider any preparatory
material or explanatory notes published with an
international convention
-​ Other countries allowed the use of travaux
préparatoires
-​ To get uniformly interpretation of international
rules
-​ Laroche v Spirit of Adventure (UK) Ltd (2009)

Schedules attached to the act Dictionary of the time the Act was passed

Marginal Notes - explain Previous act on the same topic

different section

Interpretive Section - set out Earlier case law - precedent

principle and illustration of the
application of the statute

Historical settings
4.5 The impact of EU law and the Human Rights Act 1998 on statutory interpretation

The European approach

-​ The English judges have accepted that the purposive approach is the correct one to
use when dealing with EU law.
-​ Continue apply a purposive approach to English law, even though the UK is leaving
the EU

The impact of Human Rights Act 1998

-​ S.3 of HRA – as far as it is possible to do so, legislation must be read and give effect
in a way which is compatible with the ECHR
-​ A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2004)
-​ Detention of foreign prisoners without trial was incompatible with ECHR