Statutory interpretation 

is the process by which courts interpret and

apply legislation. Some amount of interpretation is often necessary when a case
involves a statute. Sometimes the words of a statute have a plain and a
straightforward meaning. But in many cases, there is some ambiguity in the
words of the statute that must be resolved by the judge. To find the meanings of
statutes, judges use various tools and methods of statutory interpretation,
including traditional canons of statutory interpretation, legislative history, and
purpose. In common law jurisdictions, the judiciary may apply rules of statutory
interpretation both to legislation enacted by the legislature and to delegated
legislation such as administrative agency regulations.

Contents

 1History
 2General principles
o 2.1Intention of the legislature
o 2.2Conflict of laws within a federation
o 2.3United States
 2.3.1Meaning
 2.3.2Internal and external consistency
 2.3.3Statements of the legislature
 3Canons
o 3.1Textual canons
o 3.2Substantive canons
o 3.3Deference
o 3.4Criticism
 4U.S. Courts
 5European perception
 6International treaties
 7Philosophies
 8Statutory interpretation methods
 9See also
 10References
 11Further reading
 12External links

History[edit]
Statutory interpretation first became significant in common law systems, of
which historically England is the exemplar. In Roman and civil law, a statute
(or code) guides the magistrate, but there is no judicial precedent. In England,
Parliament historically failed to enact a comprehensive code of legislation,
which is why it was left to the courts to develop the common law; and having
decided a case and given reasons for the decision, the decision would become
binding on later courts.
Accordingly, a particular interpretation of a statute would also become binding,
and it became necessary to introduce a consistent framework for statutory
interpretation. In the construction (interpretation) of statutes, the principle aim
of the court must be to carry out the "Intention of Parliament", and the English
courts developed three main rules (plus some minor ones) to assist them in the
task. These were: the mischief rule, the literal rule, and the golden rule.
Statutes may be presumed to incorporate certain components, as Parliament is
"presumed" to have intended their inclusion.[1] For example:

 Offences defined in criminal statutes are presumed to require mens rea (a

guilty intention by the accused), Sweet v Parsley.[2]
 A statute is presumed to make no changes in the common law.
 A statute is presumed not to remove an individual's liberty, vested rights, or
property.[3]
 A statute is presumed not to apply to the Crown.
 A statute is presumed not to empower a person to commit a criminal
offence.
 A statute is presumed not to apply retrospectively (whereas the common law
is "declaratory", Shaw v DPP).[4]
 A statute is to be interpreted so as to uphold international treaties; and any
statutory provision which contravene EC treaties are effectively
void, Factortame.[5]
 It is presumed that a statute will be interpreted ejusdem generis, so that
words are to be construed in sympathy with their immediate context.
Where legislation and case law are in conflict, there is a presumption that
legislation takes precedence insofar as there is any inconsistency. In the United
Kingdom this principle is known as parliamentary sovereignty; but while
Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction to legislate, the courts (mindful of their
historic role of having developed the entire system of common law) retain sole
jurisdiction to interpret statutes.

General principles[edit]
The age old process of application of the enacted law has led to formulation of
certain rules of interpretation. According to Cross, "Interpretation is the process
by which the courts determine the meaning of a statutory provision for the
purpose of applying it to the situation before them,"[6] while Salmond calls it
"the process by which the courts seek to ascertain the meaning of the legislature
through the medium of authoritative forms in which it is expressed".
[7]
 Interpretation of a particular statute depends upon the degree of creativity
applied by the judges or the court in the reading of it, employed to achieve some
stated end. A statute can be interpreted by using the Golden Rule, the Mischief
Rule or the Literal Rule.
Intention of the legislature[edit]
A statute is an edict of the legislature[8] and the conventional way of interpreting
a statute is to seek the 'intention' of its maker. It is the judicature's duty to act
upon the true intention of the legislature or the mens or sentential legis. The
courts have to objectively determine the interpretation with guidance furnished
by the accepted principles.[9] If a statutory provision is open to more than one
interpretation the court has to choose that interpretation which represents the
true intention of the legislature.[10] The function of the courts is only to expound
and not to legislate.[11]
Conflict of laws within a federation[edit]
This section needs additional citations
for verification. Please help improve this
article by adding citations to reliable sources.
Unsourced material may be challenged and
removed. (March 2016) (Learn how and when to
remove this template message)
Federal jurisdictions may presume that either federal or local government
authority prevails in the absence of a defined rule. In Canada, there are areas of
law where provincial governments and the federal government have concurrent
jurisdiction. In these cases the federal law is held to be paramount. However, in
areas where the Canadian constitution is silent, the federal government does not
necessarily have superior jurisdiction. Rather, an area of law that is not
expressly mentioned in Canada's Constitution will have to be interpreted to fall
under either the federal residual jurisdiction found in the preamble of s. 91—
known as the Peace, Order and Good Government clause—or the provinces
residual jurisdiction of "Property and Civil Rights" under s. 92(13) of the 1867
Constitution Act. This contrasts with other federal jurisdictions, notably
the United States and Australia, where it is presumed that if legislation is not
enacted pursuant to a specific provision of the federal Constitution, the states
will have authority over the relevant matter in their respective jurisdictions,
unless the state's definitions of their statutes conflicts with federally established
or recognized rights
United States[edit]
Meaning[edit]
 This section needs additional citations
for verification. Please help improve this
article by adding citations to reliable sources.
Unsourced material may be challenged and
removed. (March 2016) (Learn how and when to
remove this template message)
The judiciary interprets how legislation should apply in a particular case as no
legislation unambiguously and specifically addresses all matters. Legislation
may contain uncertainties for a variety of reasons:

 Words are imperfect symbols to communicate intent. They are ambiguous

and change in meaning over time. The word 'let' used to mean 'prevent' or
'hinder'[12] and now means 'allow'. The word 'peculiar' is used to
mean both specific and unusual, e.g. "kangaroos are peculiar to Australia,"
and "it's very peculiar to see a kangaroo outside Australia."[13]
 Unforeseen situations are inevitable, and new technologies and cultures
make application of existing laws difficult. (e.g. does the use of a new
cloning technique create an embryo within the meaning of statute enacted
when embryos could only be created by fertilisation?)[14]
 Uncertainties may be added to the statute in the course of enactment, such as
the need for compromise or catering to special interest groups.
Therefore, the court must try to determine how a statute should be enforced.
This requires statutory construction. It is a tenet of statutory construction that
the legislature is supreme (assuming constitutionality) when creating law and
that the court is merely an interpreter of the law. Nevertheless, in practice, by
performing the construction the court can make sweeping changes in the
operation of the law.
Moreover, courts must also often view a case's statutory context. While cases
occasionally focus on a few key words or phrases, judges may occasionally turn
to viewing a case in its whole in order to gain deeper understanding. The totality
of the language of a particular case allows the Justices presiding to better
consider their rulings when it comes to these key words and phrases.[15]
Statutory interpretation is the process by which a court looks at a statute and
determines what it means. A statute, which is a bill or law passed by the
legislature, imposes obligations and rules on the people. Although legislature
makes the Statute, it may be open to interpretation and have ambiguities.
Statutory interpretation is the process of resolving those ambiguities and
deciding how a particular bill or law will apply in a particular case.
Assume, for example, that a statute mandates that all motor vehicles travelling
on a public roadway must be registered with the Department of Motor Vehicles
(DMV). If the statute does not define the term "motor vehicles", then that term
will have to be interpreted if questions arise in a court of law. A person driving
a motorcycle might be pulled over and the police may try to fine him if his
motorcycle is not registered with the DMV. If that individual argued to the court
that a motorcycle is not a "motor vehicle," then the court would have to interpret
the statute to determine what the legislature meant by "motor vehicle" and
whether or not the motorcycle fell within that definition and was covered by the
statute.