7: INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES
LEARNING OUTCOMES
• understand why statutory interpretation presents challenges for the judiciary
• understand the constitutional responsibility of the judiciary in relation to
statutory interpretation
• understand the difficulty of determining the ‘legislative intent’ of Parliament
• explain historic judicial ‘approaches’ to statutory interpretation
• understand how different approaches may lead to different outcomes.
INTRODUCTION
MODULE GUIDE
If a statutory text was completely clear in its terms ther would be no need for
the adjudication by courts.
Interpretation of statutes are difficult because of multiple reasons:
o Ellipsis: draftspeoeple refraining from using certain terms as they assume
they are automatically implied.
o Use of broad terms with multiple meanings
o Unforseeable developments
o Indadequate use of terminology
The way in which a judge interprets the meaning of a particular word will make
the difference between a defendant in a criminal trial being found innocent or
guilty.
The judge must decide the meaning, scope and applicability of legislation to a
particular situation.
It is constitutionally the judges role to take on statutory interpretation in order
to give life to the parliament’s intention.
Pepper v Hart, Lord Browne Wilkinson
The words of the parliament has been enacted, it is for the courts to construe
those words as a part of their duty to give effect to the intention of the
parliament.
, Sir John Laws says parliamentary intention is an unhelpful and misleading
concept as there is no such thing as intention of parliament, as it cannot be
ascribed to the mind of a single person. How can they all have the same
intention?
Richard Ekins states that it is possible to speak of parliamentary intent even if
it is a group of people as the concept of intention is different in this context,
legislative intent is to be found in their joint plan to organize the comminity and
make laws. The intentions of individual legislators are irrelevant.
STATEMENTS MADE
Tindal CJ, Sussex Peerage Claim
Only rule of the construction of Acts of Parliament is that they should be constructed
according to intent of the parliament.
Lord Hodge
It is not like mathematical formulae, and the statutes may be applied differently to different
circumstances as the time passes in ways that it would not be foreseen at the time of
legislating.
Pepper v Hart
Words of the parliament ahs been enacted, it is for the courts to make sense or construe
those words to give effect to the intent of the parliament.
APPROACHES TO INTERPRETATION
There are 3 approahces that the judges can take. They are not rules but rather
approaches that may be taken by the court.
LITERAL APPROACH
Tindal CJ in Sussex Peerage Claim
The words of a statute are of themselves precise and unambiguous, and thereby
there is no necessity to expound these words in their natural and ordinary
sense.
This approach requires courts to apply the ordinary English meaning of the
words used by the parliament.
R v City of London Court Judge
If the words of an Act are clear you must follow them even if they lead to
manifest absurdity. The court has nothing to do with the question of legislature
committing absurdity.
R v Harris
Interpreting and offence to unlawfully and maliciously stab, cut or wound any
person. The court denied biting as a term.
LEARNING OUTCOMES
• understand why statutory interpretation presents challenges for the judiciary
• understand the constitutional responsibility of the judiciary in relation to
statutory interpretation
• understand the difficulty of determining the ‘legislative intent’ of Parliament
• explain historic judicial ‘approaches’ to statutory interpretation
• understand how different approaches may lead to different outcomes.
INTRODUCTION
MODULE GUIDE
If a statutory text was completely clear in its terms ther would be no need for
the adjudication by courts.
Interpretation of statutes are difficult because of multiple reasons:
o Ellipsis: draftspeoeple refraining from using certain terms as they assume
they are automatically implied.
o Use of broad terms with multiple meanings
o Unforseeable developments
o Indadequate use of terminology
The way in which a judge interprets the meaning of a particular word will make
the difference between a defendant in a criminal trial being found innocent or
guilty.
The judge must decide the meaning, scope and applicability of legislation to a
particular situation.
It is constitutionally the judges role to take on statutory interpretation in order
to give life to the parliament’s intention.
Pepper v Hart, Lord Browne Wilkinson
The words of the parliament has been enacted, it is for the courts to construe
those words as a part of their duty to give effect to the intention of the
parliament.
, Sir John Laws says parliamentary intention is an unhelpful and misleading
concept as there is no such thing as intention of parliament, as it cannot be
ascribed to the mind of a single person. How can they all have the same
intention?
Richard Ekins states that it is possible to speak of parliamentary intent even if
it is a group of people as the concept of intention is different in this context,
legislative intent is to be found in their joint plan to organize the comminity and
make laws. The intentions of individual legislators are irrelevant.
STATEMENTS MADE
Tindal CJ, Sussex Peerage Claim
Only rule of the construction of Acts of Parliament is that they should be constructed
according to intent of the parliament.
Lord Hodge
It is not like mathematical formulae, and the statutes may be applied differently to different
circumstances as the time passes in ways that it would not be foreseen at the time of
legislating.
Pepper v Hart
Words of the parliament ahs been enacted, it is for the courts to make sense or construe
those words to give effect to the intent of the parliament.
APPROACHES TO INTERPRETATION
There are 3 approahces that the judges can take. They are not rules but rather
approaches that may be taken by the court.
LITERAL APPROACH
Tindal CJ in Sussex Peerage Claim
The words of a statute are of themselves precise and unambiguous, and thereby
there is no necessity to expound these words in their natural and ordinary
sense.
This approach requires courts to apply the ordinary English meaning of the
words used by the parliament.
R v City of London Court Judge
If the words of an Act are clear you must follow them even if they lead to
manifest absurdity. The court has nothing to do with the question of legislature
committing absurdity.
R v Harris
Interpreting and offence to unlawfully and maliciously stab, cut or wound any
person. The court denied biting as a term.
