The Golden Rule: To explain this approach, it is useful to cite the words of Lord Wensleydale in Grey v Pearson (1857) 6HL Cas61 at 106, "... the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words is to be adhered to, unless that would lead to some absurdity ... in which case the ordinary sense of the words may be modified so as to avoid that absurdity and inconsistency but no farther " (James 1989). This approach would be used when, the Literal Rule had been considered but led to an absurdity, and therefore it prevents un-just rulings and avoids absurd results. The use of this approach is evident in the case of Re Sigsworth (1935) where the judge precludes a murderer from benefiting under the victims estates, (Ingman 1998). Although there is no ambiguity in the words of the Act, the judge, on grounds of considering public policy found an alternative to prevent the applicant gaining from his crimes. However, one major weakness of the Golden Rule is that it is subject to an individual judge’s interpretation to an Act, and so, could be used erratically with no or little consistency in application.
The Mischief Rule: The application of this rule can be described by looking at the explanation from Bradney and Cownie (1996). They suggest that, “the court’s attention is focused more firmly on the purpose of the statute and the intention of the legislature than on the words before them”. This can be illustrated with the case of Smith v Hughes (1960). Under the Street Offences Act 1959, it is stated that it should be an offence to loiter or solicit in a street or public place for the purpose of prostitution. Although the women in question were either on private balconies or in windows and not in public domains, the court ruled them guilty by considering what the mischief of the Act was trying to remedy, (Martin 2005). It is clear however, that this approach can lead to different decisions on the meaning according to individual interpretation, thus, can lead to different rulings under different circumstances subject to however the statute is re-drafted.
The Purposive Rule: This approach allows the courts to give effect to the intention of the Act made by Parliament, even when the exact words do not allow for this. The court’s use of Hansard is applied when following this rule. It has become a more preferable method of interpretation as it is used in the European court’s, and since the United Kingdom became a member of the E.U. in 1973 it has been an influence to the U.K. legal system. It was not used until recently, when in 1993, for the purpose of the Pepper v Hart case, the House of Lords reconciled the position and stated that the use of reference to parliamentary materials be used under certain circumstances Walker and Ward (1994).
In addition to these rules of interpretation, there are also interpretations to the rules of language that judges use as guides and Presumptions. Examples of each are as follows:
Ejusdem generis – (or, of the same kind). If there is a general word, which follows particular words, then the general word will apply to things of the same classification.
Against retrospective effect – A law can only be binding, from the day in was introduced. It cannot operate in retrospect.
Other methods that aid interpretation are intrinsic and extrinsic aids, an example of an intrinsic aid would be ‘the interpretation section’, found at the end of an Act this works similarly to a glossary. In addition, a simple example of an extrinsic aid would be ‘the Oxford English dictionary’ used to explain any ambiguous words.
Although all of the above rules and aids are applied to the interpretation of statutes, it still fundamentally, comes down to how an individual judge will foresee the case that has been brought before them. Although it may be most likely that the Literal Rule is the more often applied, the purposive view is becoming more popular with the introduction to the European Union Laws, which as a country member we have to legally abide by. The hierarchy of the statutory interpretations should allow for mitigating circumstances to be clarified and duly assessed, giving a more reasonable outcome. On one hand the use of interpretation allows legislation to change with the times and comply with what society values at that moment, however, it does remain that, there is no determination as to what rule any one judge will follow. Therefore, even though there are clear legislations are we fundamentally at the plea of the presiding judiciary. Thus asking, should we be acceptant of non-elected bodies having the influence over of legislative rights?
References:
Bradney. A. and Cownie. F. (1996) English Legal System in Context. pp116. London. Butterworths.
Ingman. T. (1998) Seventh Ed. The English Legal Process. pp249. London. Blackstone Press Limited.
James. P. S. (1989) Twelfth Ed. Introduction to English Law. pp10. London. Butterworths.
Martin. J. (2005) Forth Ed. The English Legal System. pp74, 76. London. Hodder Arnold.
Walker. R. and Ward. R. (1994) Seventh Ed. English Legal System. pp51 London. Butterworths.
Zander. M. (1994) Forth Ed. The Law–Making Process. pp108. London. Butterworths.
Verbatim record of Parliamentary debates regarding statutes.
Aids that are found within the statute itself.
Undisputed sources that are found externally.
