1. STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
UNIT 2 UNDERSTANDING LAW MAKING

2. LEARNING OUTCOMES You will be able to: Define Statutory Interpretation
Explain the four different approaches to statutory interpretation
Give examples that are relevant to each approach to statutory interpretation
State the internal and external aids to interpretation and give examples
Outline and give examples of each rule of language

3. LEARNING OUTCOMES
Assess the advantages and disadvantages of each rule and approach to statutory interpretation
List relevant case law

4. Words Words Words…..
Write down your understanding of the following words:
Ambiguous?
What does it mean?
Round?

5. Did you know?
Of the 500 most-used words in the English language, each has, on average, 23 different meanings
The word ‘round’ has 70 different meanings!

6. Introduction to Statutory Interpretation
Many statutes are passed by Parliament each year. The meaning of the law in these statutes should be clear and explicit but this is not always achieved
Statutory interpretation concerns the role of judges when trying to apply an Act of Parliament to an actual case.
The wording of the Act may seem to be clear when it is drafted and checked by Parliament, but it may become problematic in the future.

7. Statutory Interpretation
“The courts must uphold the will of Parliament and not try to usurp its powers, but sometimes it necessary to try and understand what the words used by the parliamentary draftsman mean.”

8. The Rules of Interpretation
There are two approaches to statutory interpretation: the literal approach and the purposive approach.
There are also three main rules of statutory interpretation that judges use to decide a case:
the literal rule
the golden rule
the mischief rule

9. Task Cheeseman v Director of Public Prosecutions (1990)
Please read the case and answer the questions on the handout

10. Literal Approach versus Purposive Approach
The case of Cheeseman illustrates several of the problems of stautory interpretation. It is an example of the courts taking the words literally.
However, it can be argued that the defendant was ‘wilfully and indecently exposing his person in a street’ and that he was caught doing that. Is it important that the police officers were ‘passengers’?
Some people would argue that the whole purpose of the Act was to prevent this type of behaviour; this is the purposive approach to statutory interpretation – instead at looking at the precise meaning of each word, a broader approach is taken

11. Literal Approach versus Purposive Approach – which do you prefer?
This conflict between the literal approach and the purposive approach is one of the major issues in statutory interpretation. Should judges examine each word and take the words literally or should it be accepted that an Act of Parliament cannot cover every situation and that the meanings of words cannot always be exact?
In European law the purposive approach is taken.
In English law the judges have not been able to agree on which approach should be used, but instead, over the years they have developed three different rules of interpretation. These are the:
Literal rule
Golden rule
Mischief rule

12. Literal Rule The literal rule respects parliamentary sovereignty.
The judges take the ordinary and natural meaning of the word and apply it, even if doing so creates an absurd result.
Lord Esher said in 1892:
‘The court has nothing to do with the question of whether the legislature has committed an absurdity.’

13. Golden Rule The golden rule is an extension of the literal rule.
If the literal rule gives an absurd result, which is obviously not what Parliament intended, the judge should alter the words in the statute in order to produce a satisfactory result.
Judges may used the narrow approach or the broad approach.

14. Mischief Rule
The mischief rule (or purposive approach) gives judges the most flexibility when deciding what ‘mischief’ Parliament intended to stop. It was established in Heydon’s Case (1584).
When using this rule, a judge should consider what the common law was before the Act was passed, what the problem was with that law, and what the remedy was that Parliament was trying to provide.

15. Task
Look at the cases an decide which of the three approaches to statutory approach do you think is best?
Why?

16. Aids to Interpretation
intrinsic aids
extrinsic aids
presumptions
Latin rules of language

17. Internal & External Aids
There is a wide range of material that may be considered by a judge when interpreting statutes.  Some of these aids may be found within the statute in question, others are external to the statute. 
They are also known as intrinsic and extrinsic aids.

18. Internal Aids INTERNAL
Intrinsic aids are sources within the Act (internal aids).
In order to determine the meaning of a section of an Act of Parliament, the judge may wish to look at other sections in the Act:
INTERNAL
1. Other enacting words An examination of the whole of a statute, or relevant Parts, may indicate the overall purpose of the legislation.  It may show that a particular interpretation of that provision will lead to absurdity when taken with another section.

19. Internal Aids
2. Long Title The long title should be read as part of the context, “as the plainest of all the guides to the general objectives of a statute” (Lord Simon in The Black-Clawson Case).  For example, Lord Diplock referred to the long title of the Abortion Act
3. Preamble When there is a preamble it is will generally state the mischief to be remedied and the scope of the Act.  It is therefore clearly permissible to use it as an aid to construing the enacting provisions.
4. Headings, side-notes and punctuation Headings, side-notes and punctuation may be considered as part of the context.  However, they may not have been discussed in Parliament.

20. External Aids
Extrinsic aids are sources outside the Act (external aids). Examples include:
dictionary
Hansard
Human Rights Act 1998
legal textbooks
Interpretation Act 1978
explanatory notes

21. External Aids
1. Dictionaries and other literary sources Dictionaries are commonly consulted as a guide to the meaning of statutory words.  Textbooks may also be consulted.
2. Practice The practice followed in the past may be a guide to interpretation.  For example, the practice of eminent conveyancers where the technical meaning of a word or phrase used in conveyancing is in issue.

22. External Aids
3. Other Statutes in Pari Materia Related statutes dealing with the same subject matter as the provision in question may be considered both as part of the context and to resolve ambiguities.  A statute may provide expressly that it should be read as one with an earlier statute(s).
4. Official Reports Legislation may be preceded by a report of a Royal Commission, the Law Commissions or some other official advisory committee.  These reports may be considered as evidence of the pre-existing state of the law and the “mischief” with which the legislation was intended to deal.  However, it has been held that the recommendations contained in them may not be regarded as evidence of Parliamentary intention as Parliament may not have accepted the recommendations and acted upon them (The Black-Clawson Case).

23. External Aids
5. Treaties and International Conventions There is a presumption that Parliament does not legislate in such a way that the UK would be in breach of its international obligations.
6. Parliamentary Materials/Hansard In Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart, the House of Lords relaxed the general prohibition (in Davis v Johnson) that a court may not refer to Parliamentary materials, such as reports of debates in the House and in committee (Hansard) and the explanatory memoranda attached to Bills, when interpreting statutes.  They may now be used where: (a) legislation is ambiguous or obscure, or leads to an absurdity; (b) the material relied on consists of one or more statements by a minister or other promoter of the Bill together if necessary with such other parliamentary material as is necessary to understand such statements and their effect; and (c) the statements relied on are clear.  However, using Hansard results in three problems: the research adds to cost of a case; it may not be of assistance or confirms the view already taken by the court.

24. External Aids
7. Explanatory Notes Since 1998, Bills are presented with Explanatory Notes, written in clear and simple English.  They are updated as a Bill goes through Parliament and changes its wording and meaning.

25. Presumptions
Judges make presumptions about the wording of a statute. They know that:
the common law has not been changed unless the Act
clearly states to the contrary
a criminal offence requires mens rea (a guilty mind)
the law should not act retrospectively

26. Some Latin…
There are also Latin rules of language that aid interpretation:
ejusdem generis (of the same kind: Beswick v Beswick)
expressio unius est exclusio alterius (known from associates: Tempest v Kilner)
noscitur a sociis (the express mention of one thing is the exclusion of another: Powell v Kempton Park Racecourse)

27. More Latin… a) Ejusdem generis (of the same kind)
General words following particular words will be interpreted in the light of the particular ones.  For example:
Powell v Kempton Park Racecourse (1899). 
It was an offence to use a “house, office, room or other place for betting”.  The defendant was operating from a place outdoors.  The court held that “other place” had to refer to other indoor places because the words in the list were indoor places and so he was not guilty.

28. Not Finished with the Latin Yet!
(b) Noscitur a sociis (known from associates)
A word will be interpreted in the context of surrounding words.  For example:
Muir v Keay (1875). 
All houses kept open at night for “public refreshment, resort and entertainment” had to be licensed.  The defendant argued that his café did not need a licence because he did not provide entertainment.  The court held that “entertainment” did not mean musical entertainment but the reception and accommodation of people, so the defendant was guilty.

29. Final Latin Language…
(c) Expressio unius est exclusio alterius (the express mention of one thing is the exclusion of another)
The express mention of things in a list excludes those things not mentioned.  For example:
Tempest v Kilner (1846). 
A statute required that contracts for the sale of “goods, wares and merchandise” of £10 or more had to be evidenced in writing.  The court had to decide if this applied to a contract for the sale of stocks and shares.  The court held that the statute did not apply because stocks and shares were not mentioned.

30. Learning Outcomes You will be able to: Define Statutory Interpretation
Explain the four different approaches to statutory interpretation
Give examples that are relevant to each approach to statutory interpretation
State the internal and external aids to interpretation and give examples
Outline and give examples of each rule of language