STATUTORY INTERPRETATION

RULES OF INTERPRETATION
THE PURPOSIVE APPROACH
AIDS
RULES OF LANGUAGE

by Sakhi Ahmad
 RULES OF INTERPRETATION

by Sakhi Ahmad
THE NEED FOR STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
A BROAD TERM: ’type known as a pitbull terrier’ in DANGEROUS DOGS ACT 1991.

AMBIGUITY: If a word has multiple meanings, which is the one the judge should apply?

NEW DEVELOPMENTS: In technology, transport – ROYAL COLLEGE OF NURSING V DHSS ’medical practitioners’ now
includes nurses for the purposes of abortion. (Mischief- dangerous abortions; yes under Mischief Rule.)

CHANGES IN THE USE OF LANGUAGE: The meaning of a word may change over time – the meaning of ’passenger’
in CHEESEMAN V DPP – literal rule; passenger – anyone using street for ordinary purpose. Police – special purpose.)

DRAFTING ERRORS: Made by the Parliamentary Council which drafted the original Bill.

by Sakhi Ahmad
 THE LITERAL RULE
• The judge gives the word or phrase its natural, ordinary grammatical meaning, even if this appears to be
contrary to the intentions of Parliament.This may lead to unexepected results which were not intended
when Parliament created the statute.
• WHITELEY V CHAPPELL:
• An act made it an offence to impersonate ’any person entitled to vote in an election’ D attempted to vote
in the name of a deceased person – the court held no offence as a dead man is not ’entitled to vote’.
• FISHER V BELL:
• D displayed flick knives in his shop window and was charged under the Restriction of Offensive Weapons
Act 1959, which made it an offence to ’sell or offer for sale’ such weapons. In contract law, the display of
goods in a shop window is not an offer for sale but an invitation to treat, and invites a customer to make an
offer on the sale of the goods. The courts thus found D not guilty.
BERRIMAN:
• Widow of D tried to claim compensation after husband killed oiling railway tracks. Fatal Accidents Act gave
compensation to those killed whilst repairing or relaying the track; D was maintaining it, and so C got
nothing.

by Sakhi Ahmad
 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
THE LITERAL RULE
• ADVANTAGES:
• Respects Parliamentary sovereignty – follows the
exact words enacted by Parliament; MP’s are elected
and judges are not, thus it keeps law-making
democratic.
• It is predictable, certain and clear.
• It respects the doctorine of separation of powers and
the role of the judiciary.
• Application of the literal rule can highligh issues with
an act to Parliament, and allow them to amend the
act – in Fisher v Bell parliament altered the law
around the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act.
• The decisions are quickly made as the
definitions/decisions are found in the dictionary.
by Sakhi Ahmad
DISADVANTAGES:
• It can produce unjust, absurd results, or immoral decisions
(Berriman).
•It is not always possible for draftsmen to word an act in a
way which covers every possible situation. This may lead to
the act failing to have the effect intended by Parliament
(Whitely v Chappell).
•Where there is more than one possible dictionary
definition, the Literal Rule cannot offer a solution – the act
becomes confusing or unclear.
• If jusges did not use discrwtion, Parliament would be
bothered to change the law whwenever there is an issue.
•It assumes that all acts are worded perfectly, which is
virtually impossible.
 THE GOLDEN RULE
• Extention of the Literal Rule – allows the Court to look at the literal meaning of an ambiguous word or
phrase and avoid using a literal interpretation which would produce an abusrd result. There are two
approaches to the Golden Rule:

• NARROW APPROACH: When a word of phrase is capable of more than one literal meaning, the narrow
approach allows the judge to select the meaning that avoids an abusrdity.

by Sakhi Ahmad
 THE GOLDEN RULE
• R v Allen (1872) LR 1 CCR 367
The defendant was charged with the offence of bigamy under s.57 of the Offences Against the Person Act
1861. The statute states 'whosoever being married shall marry any other person during the lifetime of the
former husband or wife is guilty of an offence'. Under a literal interpretation of this section the offence
would be impossible to commit since civil law will not recognize a second marriage any attempt to marry in
such circumstances would not be recognized as a valid marriage.
Held:
The court applied the golden rule and held that the word 'marry' should be interpreted as 'to go through a
marriage ceremony'. The defendant's conviction was upheld.

by Sakhi Ahmad
 THE GOLDEN RULE
• BROAD APPROACH: Where there is only one interpretation of a word or phrase which would lead to an
absurdity, the broad approach allows the Court to modify this meaning.

• ADLER V GEORGE:

• D charged under Offical Secrets Act 1920 for obstructing member of armed forces ’in the vicinity (the area
near or surrounding a particular place) of a prohibited place’. D argued he was not in tthe vicinity of the
prohibited place; he was in it.

• Court interpreted the phrase ’in the vicinity of’ to include ’in’ to avoid an absurd result.

• RE SIGSWORTH:

• D’s children could not inherit from his mother as he had murdered her. Courts interpreted ’issue (next of
kin)’ from the ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES ACT 1925 and added the definition of a child whom had not
murdered his parent.

by Sakhi Ahmad
 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES –
THE GOLDEN RULE
• ADVANTAGES:
DISADVANTAGES:
• Prevents absurd and unjust results which may be
• There is no clear definition of what amounts to
presented by the Literal Rule (Re Sigsworth) (R v
an absurd result – it depends on what a judge
Allen)
considers to be absurd, which makes the
• Maintains a literal approach as a starting point, so
outcome of cases unpredictable.
the judge is not given too much power, which keeps
things fairly democratic. • Is arguably undemocratic as it gives too much
power to judges.
• Allows judges to opt for the more sensible
meaning of the word. • Michael Zander: ’feeble parachute’ – allows
courts to escape problems caused by the Literal
• More likely to produce a result which would have
been intended by Parliament. Rule, but still limits what they can do.

by Sakhi Ahmad
 THE MISCHIEF RULE
• Looks at the gap in the law prior to the act which Parliament tried to fill and then interprets the act to
’remedy the mischief’ Parliament had been aiming to suppress.
HEYDON’S CASE 1581 – the court should consider four things when attempting to interpret a statutory provision:
1.the common law before the act;2. the defect the common law didn’t provide a remedy for; 3. the remedy the
act attempts to cure the defect; 4. the true reason for the remedy.
• SMITH V HUGHES:
• D’s were prostitutes who had been charged under the Street Offences Act 1959 which made it an offence to
solicit in a public place. D’s soliciting from private premises in windows or on balconies so could be seen by
the public.
• The court applied the mischief rule holding that the activities of the defendants were within the mischief the
Act was aimed at even though under a literal interpretation they would be in a private place.
ROYAL COLLEGE OF NURSING V DHSS:
• Looked at whether nurses were able to legally carry out the first stages of an abortion.
• The ABORTION ACT 1967 states that the abortion should be carried out by a ‘registered medical practitioner’
– UKSC ruled it was legal as the mischief the act had aimed to remedy was that of illegal backstreet abortions
which caused death and injury to women.

by Sakhi Ahmad
 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
THE MISCHIEF RULE
• ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
• Avoids absurd and unjust outcomes • Gives too much power to the unelected judiciary to
resulting from the Literal Rule. decide what it thinks Parliament intended, rather than
• Promotes flexibility, enabling the law to be what the law actually states.
applied as intended by Parliament as • Allows the judiciary to update legislation – this is the
opposed to as it is simply stated in the Act. role of Parliament (Royal College of Nursing v DHSS –
This enabled the Court to reach the decision Lord Edmund-Davies: ‘redrafting with a vengeance’.)
in Smith v Hughes.
• It is not always easy to discover the mischief the act
• The Law Commission (1969): The Mischief aimed to remedy. Much law is old, archaic and
Rule is a ’rather more stisfactory approach’ piecemeal contained partly in legislation and partly in
than the Literal and Golden rules, and should case law. This makes it difficult to decipher the
be the only rule used. intention of Parliament.
• Mischief Rule can be said to be outdated – it was laid
down in the 16th century, when common law was the
main source of law and Parliamentary sovereignty was
by Sakhi Ahmad not as established as it is now.
 THE PURPOSIVE APPROACH
A modern version of the Mischief Rule which focuses on what Parliament intended when passing a new law –
look for the ’positive social purpose of the legislation’ rather than focusing on the mischief.

• Increasingly used since the UK joined the EU, as European Law is drafted in broad terms.

• Used by the ECJ when interpreting EU law.

• Also encouraged by HRA 1998 as it encourgages that all UK legislation must comply with the ECHR, which is
also drafted on broad terms.

• Shift toward the purposive approach also recommended by the Law Commission Report on the Interpretation
of Statutes (1969) (not implemented)

by Sakhi Ahmad
 THE PURPOSIVE APPROACH
MENDOZA V GHAIDAN:

• Same-sex couple living together, Rent Act 1977 stated that one partner could only inherit the
property from the other if they were ’living together as man and wife’. D’s partner died.
• ’Living together as man and wife’ reread as ’living together as if man and wife’ to make the Rent
Act compatible with the HRA; D inherited .
JONES V TOWER BOOT

• Court had to decide whether ’in the course of employment’ contained in the RACE RELATIONS ACT 1976
meant employer could not be VL for racist behaviour in the workplace by their employees.
• Court decided the purpose of the act was to eradicate racism and that if employers were held liable fo for
their workers’ racism it would encourage them to take further measures to stop it.

by Sakhi Ahmad
 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
THE PURPOSIVE APPROACH
• ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
• Brings the UK more into line with the rest of
• Gives too much power to the unelected judiciary.
Europe – is consistent with the European
approach. • Judges can overstep their role by making decisions
based on public policy, which should be left to
• Often more likely to give effect to the
Parliament – Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association
intention of Parliament than the Literal
Ltd, HoL used purposive approach to interpret the word
Approach as it is less-restrictive.
‘family’ in the Rent Act 1977 to include a homosexual
• Lord Denning: preferable to the destructive
relationship. Argued that recognition of homosexual
analysis offered by the other rules.
relationships was a matter of public policy and thus for
Parliament to decide.
 INTRINSIC AND EXTRINSIC AIDS

by Sakhi Ahmad
 INTRINSIC AIDS
• LONG AND SHORT TITLE: The long title should be read as part of the context, as in the Abortion Act (an Act
to amend and clarify the law relating to termination of pregnancy by registered medical practitioners)
1967.
• PREAMBLE (PURPOSES SECTION IN NEWER ACTS): Generally, recites the mischief to be remedied and the
purpose of the act in detail e.g. Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Act 2006.
• SCHEDULE: Appear as additions to the main body of the act. Can be refered to in order to make sense of
the main text – in some cases it is necessary to refer to the scedule to understand the act (Hunting Act
2004 – definitons given for exempt forms of hunting).
• INTERPRETATION SECTION: First used in Acts in 1999 – THEFT ACT 1968 provides a definition of theft, and
subsequent sections interpret the definition e.g. ‘property’ includes money.

by Sakhi Ahmad
 Advantages and disadvantages of INTRINSIC aids
ADVANTAGES:
DISADVANTAGES:
• It is more respectful of Parliament to look
• Most issues with wording are not likely to be
elsewhere in the act as opposed to outside
solved by looking elsewhere in the act, especially
the act.
if the words are ambiguous.
• It is quick and easy to look at things like
marginal notes.
• Internal aids alone are unlikely to be sufficient - if
• Some internal aids i.e. interpretation judges were not allowed to refer to anything
sections and schedules are designed to outside the act, it would be more difficult for
provide definitions and explanations. them to avoid unfair or absurd decisions.

by Sakhi Ahmad
 EXTRINSIC AIDS
• DICTIONARIES: Particularly those of the time of the act, to find the literal meaning of the word –
’passenger’ and ordinary use in CHEESEMAN V DPP.

• LEGAL TEXTBOOKS: Can help explain the background to the act. In DPP V BULL the judge referred to the
Wolfenden Report on Homosexuality and Prostitution 1957 to apply the Mischief Rule to the meaning of
’common prostitute’’ in the Street Offences Act 1959.

• PREVIOUS ACTS OF PARLIAMENT ON THE SAME TOPIC: WHEATLEY – CoA interpreted words used in the
Explosive Substances Act 1883 and looked back at the Explosives Act 1875 for assistance. D guilty as
earlier act held that pyrotechnics are explosives.

• INTERPRETATION ACT 1978: Contains meanings of many words aplicable to all acts; s.6 states that all
singular words include the plural.

by Sakhi Ahmad
 EXTRINSIC AIDS
• HANSARD: The daily record of all debates held in Parliament – jusges can look at what was said when
passing the act to reach their verdict since PEPPER V HART. Lord Denning was heavily criticised for doing
this in the case of DAVIS V JOHNSON and it was not allowed. There are limits on how Hansard can be used
by a judge (act must be AMBIGUOUS, statement must be made by a GOVERNMENT MINISTER, statement
must be CLEAR).

• ECHR/EU LAW/HRA 1998: see: MENDOZA V GHADIAN – Legislation must be read and given an effect in a
way that is compatible with the ECHR/HRA.

• EXPLANATORY NOTES: Written by the Government Department responsible for the act once it has been
given Royal Assent.

by Sakhi Ahmad
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF EXTRINSIC
AIDS
• ADVANTAGES:
DISADVANTAGES:
• Using a medium such as a dictionary is quick
• Using Hansard may not reveal what Parliament as
and easy.
a whole intended.
• Using Hansard might clarify what Parliament
intended in the passage of the Act. • Sometimes what a Minister said during a debate
as recorded by Hansard may not be clear.
• Europe allows background papers to be
used; it is sensible for English courts to use • There danger exists of treating materials that are

them when acts are based on international not part of the act as having the same status as

rules. the act – this may undermine the authority of

Parliament.

by Sakhi Ahmad
 Aids to interpretaion case/statute compilation
• INTRINSIC:
• LONG TITLE ABORTION ACT (AN ACT TO AMEND AND CLARIFY THE LAW RELATING TO TERMINATION OF
PREGNANCY BY REGISTERED MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS) (ROYAL COLLEGE OF NURSING V DHSS)
• PREAMBLE CLIMATE CHANGE AND SUSTAINABLE ENERGY ACT 2006
• SCHEDULE HUNTING ACT 2004: Definitons given for exempt forms of hunting.
• INTERPRETATION SECTION: THEFT ACT 1968: provides a definition of theft and interpreted e.g. ‘property’
includes money.
• EXTRINSIC:
• DICTIONARIES CHEESEMAN V DPP: Masturbating, police officers, ’passenger’ ordinary use (NG)
• LEGAL TEXTBOOKS DPP V BULL/WOLFDEN REPORT ON HOMOSEXUALITY AND PROSTITUTION 1957:
Prostitutes (not male) (NG)
• CASE LAW WHEATLEY: EXPLOSIVE SUBSTANCES ACT 1883 looked back at EXPLOSIVES ACT 1875 yes
pyrotechnics (G)
• HANSARD PEPPER V HART: private school taxes (NG) Denning criticised in DAVIS V JOHNSON (NG)
• EU LAW/HRA MENDOZA V GHADIAN: gay inherit tenancy ’living as if married’ (Y)

by Sakhi Ahmad
 Rules of language

EJUSDEM GENERIS
EXPRESSIO UNIUS EST EXCLUSIO
ALTERIUS
NOSCITUR A SOCIIS

by Sakhi Ahmad
 EJUSDEM GENERIS
• OF THE SAME GENRE
• Arises where there is a list of at least two particular words which are followed by general words.
• Any general words are interpreted as being on the list only if they are of the same kind as the
particular words.
• ‘Dogs, cats and other animals’ – other animals to mean ‘other domesticated animals.
• POWELL V KEMPTON PARK RACECOURSE:
• D charged with keeping a ‘house, office room or other place for betting’. D was operating in an
outdoor enclosure.
• As the enclosure was outdoors, and the particular words specified only places indoors, D not
guilty.
• ALLEN V EMMERSON:
• Court asked to decide whether ‘theatres and other places of amusement’ included a funfair.
• As there was only one specific word in the list, the rule did not apply.

by Sakhi Ahmad
 Advantages and disadvantages – ejusdem generis
• ADVANTAGES:
DISADVANTAGES:
• There is no requirement for the draftsmen
• Inconsistent - It is not always predictable what
to write an exhaustive list of everything that
the judges will consider to be the same category
is included.
as the specific words
• The Act can cover circumstances which
• Undemocratic - It can be said to allow for judicial
might not have been covered by the
law-making – undermines Parliamentary
draftsmen.
sovereignty.
• It allows the Act to adapt to changes in

society.
by Sakhi Ahmad
 Expressio unius est exclusio alterius
• EXPRESSING ONE THING EXCLUDES ANOTHER

• Where a list of particular words are not followed by a general word, the Act will apply only to items
specifically mentioned in the list.

• R V INHABITANTS OF SEDGLEY:

• Rates charged on ‘land, titles and coalmines’ under the POOR RELIEF ACT 1601. D’s did not have to
pay tax on limestone mines as they are not included in the list.

TEMPEST V KILNER:

• Court asked to decide whether the STATUTE OF FRAUDS 1677 which required a written contract for
the sale of ‘goods, wares and merchandise’ applied to a contract for the sale of stocks and shares.

• List did not mention stocks and shares; exclusio rule excluded them from the list.

by Sakhi Ahmad
 Advanatages and disadvantages – expression unius
est exclusio alterius
• ADVANTAGES: DISADVANTAGES:
• Consistent - A finite list is provided,
• Ridgity - there is no scope for development of
which makes the outcome of cases the Act to suit a new or novel situation. If there
more predictable. is an issue with the list in the Act then

• Democratic - It respects the doctrine of Parliament will be required to sit and remedy it.

separation of powers; judges apply the • It can result in unfair and unjust outcomes.
law precisely as stated by the elected

Parliament.

by Sakhi Ahmad
 Noscitur a sociis
• RECOGNITION BY ASSOCIATED WORDS – A WORD IS KNOWN BY THE COMPANY IT KEEPS
• Words must be looked at in context and interpreted accordingly.
• MUIR V KEAY:
• D kept his café open to the public during the night without a licence. A licence is needed if opening late
for ‘entertainment purposes.
• Court used Noscitur rule and held that ‘entertainment’ in the context of the act did not mean only music
or theatre, but other forms of entertainment including consumption of coffee. D had committed an
offence under the act.
• INLAND REVENUE V FRERE:
• Section set out rules for taxes payable on ‘interest, annuities or other annual interest’.
• Court decided that ‘interest’ could include any kind of interest, but the use of ‘other annual interest’
meant that ‘interest’ only referred to annual interest.
• D’s interest payment on a loan was not annual interest and he was thus required to pay tax on it.

by Sakhi Ahmad
 ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
NOSCITUR A SOCIIS

• ADVANTAGES: DISADVANTAGES:

• There is no need for draftsmen to • Undemocratic – it allows for judicial creativity

foresee every particular circumstance.
• There is scope for the act to be
adapted to suit unforeseen
circumstances.
in terms of interpretation, which offends the
doctrine of separation of powers.
• Inconsistent – the outcome of cases can
become unpredictable when Noscitur is
applied.

by Sakhi Ahmad
RULES OF LANGUAGE CASE/STATUTE COMPILATION
• EJUSDEM GENERIS:
• HOWELL V KEMPTON PARK RACECOURSE: House, office or other place. D’s betting outdoors, no four
walls/roof. (NG)
• ALLEN V EMMERSON: ’Theaters and other places of amusement’ – only one specific word so does
not include funfairs. (NG)
• EXPRESSIO UNIUS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS:
• R V INHABITANTS OF SEDGLEY: Land, titles and coalmines. No rates on Limestone mines. (NG)
• TEMPEST V KILNER: ’Goods, wares and merchandises’ does not include stocks and shares. (NG)
• NOSCITUR A SOCIIS:
• MUIR V KEAY: Café, licence, ’entertainment’ includes coffee. (G)
• INLAND REVENUE V FRERE: ’Interest, annuities and other annual interest’ only includes annual
interest. (G)

by Sakhi Ahmad
 QUESTIONS ON THE STATUTORY
INTERPRETATION TOPIC
• 2014: Explain the mischief rule. [10 marks]
• • Outline both of the following: The purposive approach to statutory interpretation and; the ejusdem generis rule of
language. [10 marks]
• • Briefly discuss advantages and disadvantages of either the mischief rule or the purposive approach. [10 marks + 2
marks for AO3]
• 2015: Describe the literal rule of statutory interpretation. [10 marks]
• • Describe the golden rule of statutory interpretation. [10 marks]
• • Briefly discuss advantages and disadvantages of the golden rule. [10 marks + 2 marks for AO3]
• 2016: Outline internal (intrinsic) and external (extrinsic) aids to statutory interpretation. [10 marks]
• • Explain the mischief rule and how it has been used by judges in cases. [10 marks]
• • Briefly discuss advantages and disadvantages of the mischief rule. [10 marks + 2 marks for AO3]
• 2017: Briefly explain each of the following, including how both are used by judges: The purposive approach to
statutory interpretation and; One rule of language. [10 marks]
• • Explain the literal rule and its use by judges. [10 marks]
• • Briefly discuss advantages and disadvantages of the literal rule. [10 marks + 2 for AO3]

by Sakhi Ahmad