Statutory Interpretation
P8
Provide written advice for the following clients. Ensure that you answer each of the questions in
your advice.
Client 1: This client has a shop in which he sells cigarettes. He has an A4 sign displayed in the
shop saying “It is illegal to sell tobacco products if you are under 18”.
A. Explain the literal rule (include at least 2 cases)
The literal rule is explained in a case called R v Judge of the city of London Court (1982), it was
said by Lord Esher “If the words of an act are clear, then you must follow them even if they lead
to a manifest absurdity”. In other words, if the words are clear (of the act), follow the strict
interpretation even if the outcome is absurd. This means that Client 1 must follow the A4 sign he
displayed even if his life depended on it, otherwise he would be found guilty. An example of the
literal rule is Whitely v Chappell, in this case a defendant used a person’s name who had died
but was still on the list to vote, he used the name to vote twice. He was charged under a section
which made it an offence to ‘impersonate any person entitled to vote’. In the literal sense, a
dead person cannot vote which means that the defendant did not impersonate a person entitled
to vote, therefore he is not guilty. Another case that uses literal rule is, London and North
Eastern Railway Co v Berriman, in this case a railway worker was killed during maintenance
work, which was oiling the railway points. His wife, who is now a widow, tried to claim
compensation under the Railway Regulations and Fatal Accident Act, which offered
compensation for anyone who is “relaying or repairing” on the railway. The court read the act
and found that she could only claim compensation if her husband died by doing any repairing or
relaying, maintenance work was not included in the act which left her empty handed.
B. Apply the literal rule; would Client 1 be found guilty applying this rule?
Placing an A4 sign instead of an A3 is against the law, which means that he would be guilty
applying this law, even though he/she was trying to follow the law, he did not follow it to the
standards set by the law. Client 1 had an obligation to put up an A3 signs even if it lead him to a
manifest absurdity. Therefore, he is guilty.
C. Explain the mischief rule (include at least 2 cases)
The Mischief rule was given to us by Heydon’s case (1584), under this rule, the court will look to
see what the law was before the act was passed to find out what gap or “mischief” was that the
act was to cover. This definition is split up into four points for the court to consider:-
1. What was the law before the act
2. What was wrong with the law before the Act to make parliament pass the Act
3. How did the Act that was passed solve the problem with the old law
4. Look at the new law in the Act and interpret it to make sure that the problem is solved
P8
Provide written advice for the following clients. Ensure that you answer each of the questions in
your advice.
Client 1: This client has a shop in which he sells cigarettes. He has an A4 sign displayed in the
shop saying “It is illegal to sell tobacco products if you are under 18”.
A. Explain the literal rule (include at least 2 cases)
The literal rule is explained in a case called R v Judge of the city of London Court (1982), it was
said by Lord Esher “If the words of an act are clear, then you must follow them even if they lead
to a manifest absurdity”. In other words, if the words are clear (of the act), follow the strict
interpretation even if the outcome is absurd. This means that Client 1 must follow the A4 sign he
displayed even if his life depended on it, otherwise he would be found guilty. An example of the
literal rule is Whitely v Chappell, in this case a defendant used a person’s name who had died
but was still on the list to vote, he used the name to vote twice. He was charged under a section
which made it an offence to ‘impersonate any person entitled to vote’. In the literal sense, a
dead person cannot vote which means that the defendant did not impersonate a person entitled
to vote, therefore he is not guilty. Another case that uses literal rule is, London and North
Eastern Railway Co v Berriman, in this case a railway worker was killed during maintenance
work, which was oiling the railway points. His wife, who is now a widow, tried to claim
compensation under the Railway Regulations and Fatal Accident Act, which offered
compensation for anyone who is “relaying or repairing” on the railway. The court read the act
and found that she could only claim compensation if her husband died by doing any repairing or
relaying, maintenance work was not included in the act which left her empty handed.
B. Apply the literal rule; would Client 1 be found guilty applying this rule?
Placing an A4 sign instead of an A3 is against the law, which means that he would be guilty
applying this law, even though he/she was trying to follow the law, he did not follow it to the
standards set by the law. Client 1 had an obligation to put up an A3 signs even if it lead him to a
manifest absurdity. Therefore, he is guilty.
C. Explain the mischief rule (include at least 2 cases)
The Mischief rule was given to us by Heydon’s case (1584), under this rule, the court will look to
see what the law was before the act was passed to find out what gap or “mischief” was that the
act was to cover. This definition is split up into four points for the court to consider:-
1. What was the law before the act
2. What was wrong with the law before the Act to make parliament pass the Act
3. How did the Act that was passed solve the problem with the old law
4. Look at the new law in the Act and interpret it to make sure that the problem is solved
