Statutory Interpretation P5
What is the Literal Rule?
The Literal Rule is when a Judge is required to give a word its ordinary dictionary
meaning; even if it appears contrary to the intentions of Parliament. The Literal Rule
can give rise to unexpected results and this rule is the first rule applied by Judges.
The Literal Rule dictates that the law should be interpreted using the ordinary
meaning of the language and it is to be read word for word unless defined
otherwise.
What is a case example of the Literal Rule?
A case where the Literal Rule has been used is the Whitely vs Chappel (1868) case,
and this led to an absurd result. A Section made it an offence to impersonate any
person entitled to vote. The defendant in this case had impersonated a man who
had died, therefore rendering that person not entitled to vote. The Act relating to
voting rights required an individual to be living in order to be entitled to vote. The
case was held and the Literal Rule was applied, and the defendant was thus
acquitted of any wrongdoing.
What is the Golden Rule?
The Golden Rule enables the court to look at the literal meaning of an Act. This rule
allows a Judge to depart from a word’s normal meaning in order to avoid an absurd
result. This rule of statutory interpretation may be applied when an application of the
Literal Rule would lead to an absurdity. The Golden Rule gives the words of a
statute their plain, ordinary meaning. However, when this may lead to an irrational
result that is unlikely to be the legislature’s intention, the golden rule permits a
Judge to depart from this meaning. There are two approaches to the Golden Rule
that can be used; the Broad approach and the Narrow approach.
What is the Narrow Approach and a Case Example?
The Narrow approach can be used when the words are capable of more than one
literal meaning, hence the Judge can select the appropriate meaning that avoids
absurdity. A case where the Narrow approach has been used is the R vs Allen
(1872) case. The defendant was charged with the offence of bigamy under a
Section of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The Section stated that
‘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 and it would lead to an absurd
result. However, the Court applied the Golden rule and used the Narrow approach
to deduce that the word ‘marry’ should be interpreted as ‘to go through a marriage
ceremony’. Consequently, the Defendant’s conviction was upheld.
CQH 2012
, What is the Broad Approach and a Case Example?
The Broad approach can be used when there is only one literal meaning of a word,
however to apply it would be absurd. Therefore, the court may modify the meaning
of the word in order to avoid absurdity. A case where the Broad approach has been
used is the Adler vs George (1964) case. Under a specific Act, it was an offence to
be in the general vicinity of a prohibited place. The defendant in this case had
actually entered the prohibited place, rather than being in the vicinity of it and was
eventually caught. The court applied the Golden rule and used the Broad approach;
and the court deduced that it would be absurd for an individual to be liable for being
near a prohibited place and not if they were actually in it. The Defendant’s
conviction was therefore upheld.
What is the Mischief Rule?
The Mischief Rule is applied to recognise what ‘mischief’ Parliament was attempting
to rectify. The court will examine the original legislation and will attempt to identify
what Parliament was trying to accomplish. When applying the Mischief Rule,
Judges need to consider what the law was before the Act was passed, identify what
was wrong with that law, decide how Parliament intended to enhance the law
through the Section in question and apply that finding to the relevant case brought
before the court. Ultimately, this rule requires that where an Act has been approved
to correct a defect or limitation in the law, the interpretation which will correct that
limitation or defect is the one to be adopted.
What is a Case Example of the Mischief Rule?
A case where the Mischief Rule has been used is the Smith vs Hughes (1960) case.
The defendants in this case were several prostitutes who had been caught and
charged with soliciting in a public place, in contravention of the Street Offences Act
1959. The defendants argued that as they were soliciting from private property
(balconies and windows), they had not contravened this Section of the Act. The
court used the Mischief Rule and decided that even though the defendants were on
private property, they were nonetheless soliciting to individuals in the street and
therefore had breached the Act. Consequently, the defendants were found guilty.
What is the Purposive Approach?
The Purposive approach focuses on what Parliament intended when establishing
new legislation. Judges are able to consult Hansard and reports from the Law
Commission and Royal Commissions so they can apply the legitimate intentions of
Parliament. Transcripts of the Parliamentary debate can also be used to help
determine the actual intentions of Parliament. The Purposive approach is widely
used by the EU, since its law is very abstract; unlike UK law that is more specific
and attempts to cover many possibilities. Courts in the UK are required to follow EU
interpretations when interpreting EU law. Likewise, they must have regard to the
CQH 2012
What is the Literal Rule?
The Literal Rule is when a Judge is required to give a word its ordinary dictionary
meaning; even if it appears contrary to the intentions of Parliament. The Literal Rule
can give rise to unexpected results and this rule is the first rule applied by Judges.
The Literal Rule dictates that the law should be interpreted using the ordinary
meaning of the language and it is to be read word for word unless defined
otherwise.
What is a case example of the Literal Rule?
A case where the Literal Rule has been used is the Whitely vs Chappel (1868) case,
and this led to an absurd result. A Section made it an offence to impersonate any
person entitled to vote. The defendant in this case had impersonated a man who
had died, therefore rendering that person not entitled to vote. The Act relating to
voting rights required an individual to be living in order to be entitled to vote. The
case was held and the Literal Rule was applied, and the defendant was thus
acquitted of any wrongdoing.
What is the Golden Rule?
The Golden Rule enables the court to look at the literal meaning of an Act. This rule
allows a Judge to depart from a word’s normal meaning in order to avoid an absurd
result. This rule of statutory interpretation may be applied when an application of the
Literal Rule would lead to an absurdity. The Golden Rule gives the words of a
statute their plain, ordinary meaning. However, when this may lead to an irrational
result that is unlikely to be the legislature’s intention, the golden rule permits a
Judge to depart from this meaning. There are two approaches to the Golden Rule
that can be used; the Broad approach and the Narrow approach.
What is the Narrow Approach and a Case Example?
The Narrow approach can be used when the words are capable of more than one
literal meaning, hence the Judge can select the appropriate meaning that avoids
absurdity. A case where the Narrow approach has been used is the R vs Allen
(1872) case. The defendant was charged with the offence of bigamy under a
Section of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. The Section stated that
‘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 and it would lead to an absurd
result. However, the Court applied the Golden rule and used the Narrow approach
to deduce that the word ‘marry’ should be interpreted as ‘to go through a marriage
ceremony’. Consequently, the Defendant’s conviction was upheld.
CQH 2012
, What is the Broad Approach and a Case Example?
The Broad approach can be used when there is only one literal meaning of a word,
however to apply it would be absurd. Therefore, the court may modify the meaning
of the word in order to avoid absurdity. A case where the Broad approach has been
used is the Adler vs George (1964) case. Under a specific Act, it was an offence to
be in the general vicinity of a prohibited place. The defendant in this case had
actually entered the prohibited place, rather than being in the vicinity of it and was
eventually caught. The court applied the Golden rule and used the Broad approach;
and the court deduced that it would be absurd for an individual to be liable for being
near a prohibited place and not if they were actually in it. The Defendant’s
conviction was therefore upheld.
What is the Mischief Rule?
The Mischief Rule is applied to recognise what ‘mischief’ Parliament was attempting
to rectify. The court will examine the original legislation and will attempt to identify
what Parliament was trying to accomplish. When applying the Mischief Rule,
Judges need to consider what the law was before the Act was passed, identify what
was wrong with that law, decide how Parliament intended to enhance the law
through the Section in question and apply that finding to the relevant case brought
before the court. Ultimately, this rule requires that where an Act has been approved
to correct a defect or limitation in the law, the interpretation which will correct that
limitation or defect is the one to be adopted.
What is a Case Example of the Mischief Rule?
A case where the Mischief Rule has been used is the Smith vs Hughes (1960) case.
The defendants in this case were several prostitutes who had been caught and
charged with soliciting in a public place, in contravention of the Street Offences Act
1959. The defendants argued that as they were soliciting from private property
(balconies and windows), they had not contravened this Section of the Act. The
court used the Mischief Rule and decided that even though the defendants were on
private property, they were nonetheless soliciting to individuals in the street and
therefore had breached the Act. Consequently, the defendants were found guilty.
What is the Purposive Approach?
The Purposive approach focuses on what Parliament intended when establishing
new legislation. Judges are able to consult Hansard and reports from the Law
Commission and Royal Commissions so they can apply the legitimate intentions of
Parliament. Transcripts of the Parliamentary debate can also be used to help
determine the actual intentions of Parliament. The Purposive approach is widely
used by the EU, since its law is very abstract; unlike UK law that is more specific
and attempts to cover many possibilities. Courts in the UK are required to follow EU
interpretations when interpreting EU law. Likewise, they must have regard to the
CQH 2012
