Assignment 6 – Chapter 14

Introduction

Case law can be fairly condemned for being unreliable as a source of law which is a result of

it depending solely upon the reasoning of a judge, albeit within the context of judicial

precedent. Various judges may reach different judgements on a specific set of facts due to the

judicial mind being frequently unpredictable. Consequently, this makes it difficult to

determine the outcome of a case. The process of distinguishing judicial precedent might be

even more imprecise and subjective (Antoine, 2008). Legislation, or ‘hard law’ may,

therefore, be viewed as a more certain and reliable source of law than precedent. The society

determines the status of the law and simply records it in a statute through its representatives

in the legislature and Parliament. The meaning and effectiveness of a statute is only apparent

when judges have interpreted it, which may be a difficult exercise as the process of

interpreting legislation or statutes may even be more unpredictable in the process of law

making than judicial precedent.

Another important source of law comes from the interpretation of legislation before the

courts. It is a known fact that legislature or Parliament makes law, but it is up to the courts to

apply it. Statutory interpretation is, therefore, the process where courts interpret and apply

legislation to a particular case. In some instances, however, the meaning of a word or phrase

could be problematic. There may be uncertainty over the intent of the language employed in

statutes due to several factors. These factors include: ellipsis, generalization, ambiguity, new

situations, and errors. Over the years, rules of interpretation have been created to help the

Court's application of an unclear provision in a statute. The author will elucidate three of the

many rules of interpretation which are: the Literal rule, the Golden rule, and the Mischief rule

(the Purposive rule).

The Literal Rule

The literal or "plain meaning" rule is used as the foundation for construing or interpreting a

statute. This rule establishes that where the enactment under inquiry is grammatically capable

of one meaning only, and there is no real doubt as to whether the grammatical meaning is the

one intended by the legislature, and the legal meaning is consistent with the grammatical

meaning, then it is to be applied accordingly. When a dispute about a law's interpretation or

application occurs, the Courts must interpret statutes according to their plain or natural

meanings.

An early statement of this rule is found in the Fisher v Bell case (1960), where the issue

raised was whether the knife exhibited in the shop window with the price tag behind was an

offer for sale within the meaning of Section 1 (1) of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons

Act, 1959. The appellant argued that the display of the particular knife was not in violation of

Section 1 (1) of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 but the respondent claimed

before the constable that he did not offer the knife for sale within the meaning of the

aforementioned Act. In the present case, the judges applied the literal rule of interpretation

while interpreting Section 1(1) of the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act, 1959. According

to the literal rule, every word in the statute must be given in their grammatical, natural, and

ordinary meanings. The aforesaid Act does not allow the manufacture, selling or hiring of a

flick knife but there is no prohibition against exposing it for sale in the section. If the section

contained the words “expose for sale”, the respondent in the case would have been held guilty

of the offense under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act, 1959.

The Golden Rule

The second rule of statutory interpretation that the author will explain is the golden rule. This

rule provides that if the literal and ordinary meaning of the words of the statute gives rise to

ambiguity, and/or an absurd result which Parliament could not have intended, then the judge

may substitute a reasonable meaning in light of the statute as a whole. The use of the phrase

the ‘golden rule’ was in the R v Allen case (1872).

In this case, the defendant was accused of bigamy, Section 57 of the Offences Against Person

Act of 1861, which is a crime if someone who is married, marries someone else while the

former spouse is still alive. Under The Literal Rule, bigamy would be impossible because

civil courts do not recognize second marriages, so The Golden Rule was applied to determine

that the word ‘marry’ should be seen as ‘to go through ceremony’ and the conviction was

upheld. The main advantage of The Golden Rule is that drafting errors in statutes can be

easily fixed. This is seen in the aforesaid case where the loopholes were closed and the

decision was in line with parliament’s intentions which produced a more just outcome.

The Mischief Rule

The mischief rule is perhaps the oldest rule of statutory interpretation. According to this rule,

judges must consider four elements when making decisions in circumstances where a statute's

language is unclear. These factors include: what the law was before the statute was passed,

what was the problem, or ‘mischief’, the statute was trying to remedy, what remedy

Parliament was trying to provide and what was the reason for the remedy. Therefore, it is the

judge's responsibility to interpret the law in a way that stops the wrongdoing and advances

the remedy. The mischief rule can be found in the case of Corkery v Carpenter (1951).
In this case, Shane Corkery was sentenced to one month’s imprisonment for being drunk

while in charge of a bicycle in public. The defendant was intoxicated when, on January 18,

1950, at around 2.45 p.m., he was seen pedaling his bicycle down Broad Street in Ilfracombe.

He was subsequently charged under Section 12 of the Licensing Act 1872 with being drunk

and in charge of a carriage, however, the 1872 Act made no actual reference to bicycles. The

mischief rule was chosen by the court to resolve the conflict. The Act was created to forbid

anybody from operating any form of transport on a public roadway while intoxicated. The

bicycle was clearly a form of transport and therefore Corkery was correctly charged.

Application of Rule by Justice Silas

The author believes that Justice Silas should apply the Golden Rule for several reasons.

Firstly, the Golden Rule allows the court to depart from the literal meaning of words because

applying the strict, literal rule would lead to absurd or unjust results. Justice Silas, after

interpreting Section 15 of the Agricultural Workers Act 1889 in an Industrial Relations

matter before him, finds that the result is an injustice to the workers. He can now apply the

Golden rule which helps to ensure that the law is interpreted in a way that is fair, just, and

sensible, avoiding unintended and unjust outcomes. Secondly, the Golden Rule makes the

jurors put themselves in the place of the victim or the injured person. This allows the jurors to

deliver the verdict that they would wish to receive if they were in that person’s position.

In this case, the wide or extended Golden Rule is applied as there is no ambiguity in the

language of the statute, but the literal interpretation would lead to an absurd outcome. Justice

Silas can, therefore, depart from the ordinary meaning of the words to prevent absurdity, even

if modification or extension of the statutory language is involved and he can now make a
decision that is fair and just to the workers, provided that the Golden Rule was applied when

interpreting Section 15 of the Agricultural Workers Act 1889.

Conclusion

In summation of this essay, the author examined the concept of statutory interpretation, the

rules of statutory interpretation and their importance and evaluated which rule should be

applied to the given scenario. Additionally, cases in which the stated rules of statutory

interpretation were given to assist the author in explaining.