Circumstances where Hansard can be consulted
- Legislation is obscure, ambiguous or leads to an absurdity
- The material relied on consists of one or more statements by the promoter of the bill together if necessary with such other parliamentary material as is necessary to understand such statements and their effect
- The statements relied on are clear
There are three rules of Statutory Interpretation: Literal, Golden and Mischief.
Literal rule
- Gives all the words their ordinary and literal meaning
-
Popular in the 19th century
- In 1969 the law commission said it had been unduly emphasised, so since then a broader view has been taken.
Advantages
- It does not affect parliamentary sovereignty
- Law making is left to elected people
Disadvantages
- Can lead to an absurd decision
- Answer cannot always be found in the statute
CASES
Whitely v Chappell (1868)
- Defendant was charged under a section, which made it illegal to impersonate ‘any person entitled to vote’.
- Defendant pretended to be someone who was on the voter list, but had recently died.
- Decision was not guilty because a dead person is not (in literal terms) entitled to vote.
ABSURD RESULT
Fisher v Bell (1961)
- Offence was ‘To sell or to offer for sale any flick-knife…’
- Offensive weapons act 1959
- Knives were displayed in a shop window
- The question was, whether the defendant was offering for sale.
- In contract law, displaying goods is not an offer for sale, but an invitation to treat.
- The literal rule was used so defendant was found not guilty, as it was an invitation to treat.
ABSURD RESULT
Cheeseman v Director for Public Prosecutions (1991)
- Charged with ‘wilfully and indecently exposing his person in a street to the annoyance of passengers’.
- Town Causes Act 1847
- Two police officers were sent to ‘stake out’ the toilet the offender, after they had been receiving complaints about the behaviour of a man in a public toilet.
- They saw Cheeseman indecently expose himself to them.
- The extended meaning of the word street included the public toilet.
- However the defendant was found not guilty, because the policemen did not fit into the definition of a passenger as they were not ‘a passer by or through; a traveller (usually on foot); a wayfarer’
ABSURD RESULT
Golden rule
Lord Wensleydale defined the golden rule in Greg v Pearson (1857) as a sensible view of matters.
The golden rule is used to prevent an injustice or absurd result, or when the court has to choose one of two words.
Advantages
Avoids absurd results
Disadvantages
That it is not as broad as the mischief rule.
CASES
Re: Sigsworth (1935)
- Son murders his mother
- It is discovered that the mother has left no will
- Normally it would go to the next of kin, which in this case would be the son
- Court was not going to let a murderer inherit the estate of the person they have killed
- Court effectively wrote that the ‘issue’ would not be entitled to inherit where they had killed the deceased
R v Allen (1872)
- Allen had gone through the wedding ceremony with one woman whilst still being married to another woman
- The offence was “Whosoever, being married, shall marry any other person during the life of the former husband or wife” is guilty of bigamy
Offences against the person act 1861
- Use of the literal rule would find him not guilty because it would impossible to marry a second time
- Court used the golden rule and interpreted ‘marry’ as ‘going through a form of marriage ceremony’ of which Allen was guilty
Adler v George (1964)
- Defendant was charger under the Official Secrets Act 1926, with obstructing a member of the armed forces, in the ‘vicinity of prohibited places’.
- He argued that the natural meaning of vicinity meant near to, whereas the obstruction occurred in the actual prohibited place itself
- The court held that in this context it is reasonable to construe the meaning of vicinity as including being within the prohibited place.
Mischief Rule
This was defined form Heydon’s Case 1584
- What was the common law before the Act was made?
- What was the mischief the common law didn’t solve?
- What remedy did Parliament produce to solve the mischief?
- What was the reasoning behind the mischief?
Advantages
Avoids absurdity
More flexible than Golden and Literal
Disadvantages
Circumstances are different from when Heydon’s case was decided
Not always obvious what the original mischief was
There are lengthy preambles on old statutes, but not on modern acts
CASES
Smith v Hughes 1960
- “It shall be an offence for a common prostitute to loiter or solicit in a street or public place for the purpose of prostitution”
- Courts considered appeals from 6 different women
- None of who were on the ‘street’
- One was on a balcony & others were calling from windows
- Each women was attracting men by calling or tapping on a window
- Court ruled that they were guilty
Royal college of Nursing v DHSS 1981
- Abortion Act 1967 – pregnancy should be ‘terminated by a registered medical practitioner’
- When act was passed only a doctor could perform an abortion due to the procedure
- From 1972 due to technology, the usual method was now to induce labour with drugs
-
1st part was done by a doctor
-
2nd part was done by nurses without doctor’s supervision
- H/L said it was lawful because of the mischief rule
Elliot v Grey 1960
- Road traffic act 1930 meant it was illegal for an ‘uninsured car to be used on the road’
- Fact was that there was a jacked up car with no battery on the road
- Found guilty because the intention of parliament was for people to use insured cars
Rules of language
Ejusdem Generis – general words which follow specific words are taken to include only things of the same kind. Powell v Kempton Park Racecourse (1899)
Expressio unius exclusio alterius – the express mention of one thing, excludes others. Eg, No dogs allowed on the train, could mean that donkeys are allowed
Noscitur a sociis – a word is known by the company it keeps
Presumptions
- Mens rea – no one can be convicted unless they have a blameworthy state of mind
- Statutes don’t change common law
- Crown is not bound by any statute
- Legislation does not apply retrospectively
- It applies generally through the UK
- International obligations wont be breached
- Laws creating crimes should be interpreted in the favour of the citizen
- Nothing is removed from the courts jurisdiction
- Existing rights are not interfered with
- If property rights are interfered with, the victim will be compensated
European Legislation
The purposive rule is more applicable in Europe because European Legislation is drafted more on purpose.
