The literal rule is a type of statutory construction which dictates that statutes are to be interpreted using the ordinary meaning of the language of the statute, unless the result would be cruel or absurd. In the case of Duport Steel v. Sirs was mentioned that “court is not interpreting the act but really making law.” In Fisher v. Bell the Act of 1959 made it an offence to “sell or hire or offer for sale or hire” certain offensive weapons such as flick-knife. Bell placed in his shop window with the price tag on it. He was not guilty.
In the context of law, the Golden rule, also known as the British rule, is a form of statutory interpretation that says the words of a statute should be understood in their ordinary sense.
It provides that wordings should be given their ordinary meaning as far as possible. The classic case to illustrate this rule is the River Wear Commissioners v. Adamson.
The Mischief Rule is a certain rule that judges can apply in statutory interpretation in order to discover Parliament's intention. The application of this rule gives the judge more discretion than the literal and the golden rule as it allows him to effectively decide on Parliament's intent. This was illustrated in the case of Smith v Hughes, where under the Street Offences Act. It was a crime for prostitutes to “purposes of prostitution”. The defendants were calling to men in the street from balconies and tapping on windows. They claimed they were not guilty as they were not in the “street”. The judge applied the mischief rule to come to the conclusion that they were guilty as the intention of the Act was to cover the mischief of harassment from prostitutes.
Under the EC Act, a court must adopt a purposive approach in construing legislations that implements EC law. EC legislation is drafted in a different way from statues of some member of countries as United Kingdom. It is drafted in civil law tradition. In Lister v. Forth Dry Dock, where employees were dismissed one hour before a business was transferred to a new owner. They claimed that the dismissal was unfair. Regulation 5. of the Transfer Undertaking Regulation 1981 provided, that the House of Lords read in the additional words “or would have been so employed, if he had not been unfairly dismissed before the transfer”. The purposive approach is also a feature of the reasoning of the European Court of Justice. Decisions of this court are binding the member of countries, it rules of legal reasoning are of increasing importance in member countries legal systems and have an indirect influence on interpretation, even when the legislation does not originate from the European Community.
The Human Rights Act 1998 came into force on 2. October 2000. Under section 3.judges must interpret any legislations ‘so far as possible’ to be compatible with the Convention rights, and where consistency cannot be achieved, need to declare such laws incompatible with Convention rights. However, it is also important in a case of Price v. Leeds that where there is a conflict between House of Lord’s decision and the European Court of Human Rights, precedent demands that the House of Lords be followed. The conflict has reflected in most of the case law on HRA. This had happened in a case of Ghaidan v. Mendoza where section 4 declaration should be seen as a remedy of last resort. Courts are prepared to use some of other technique to achieve consistency these are; first, read down the words of the Act to give them a narrower than usual scope, second, read in Convention rights by implying words into a statute that are not there on a literal reading and third, there is a process in which incompatible words are to be changed and read as if they were compatible.
The interpretation of legislations and statutes is difficult. Rightly or wrongly, this gives judiciary a considerable licence in exercising that interpretative function. Still leaves some uncertainty about how far a court should be prepared to achieve consistency. The purpose of the judicial interpretation therefore, to follow rules such as s.3, and to be compatible with the Convention rights. They need to be fair, lawful and not to be misled.
Bibliography
Lecture Notes
Learning Legal Rules, James Holland, Julian Webb
Law of the European Community, John Fairhurst, Christopher Vincenzi
Iolis, 2006/07
Lexis-Nexis Butterworth, (full cases)
Westlaw, (case summary)
Ashworth (Holdings) Ltd. v. Ballard (Kent) Ltd. [1999] 2 All ER 791
Duport Steel v. Sirs [1980] 1 WLR 142; [1980] 1 All ER 529, 541
Fisher v. Bell [1961] 1 QB 394; [1960] 3 All ER 371
River Wear Commissioners v. Adamson (1876-77) 2 App Cas 743 at 764-5
Smith v Hughes [1960] 2 All E.R. 859
European Communities Act 1972
Lister v. Forth Dry Dock and Engineering Co. Ltd. [1989] 1 All ER 1134
Price v. Leeds City Council [2005] EWCA Civ 289; [2005] 1 WLR 1825
Ghaidan v. Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30
