The oldest and most important approach is literal interpretation. The interpretation of Acts purely according to their literal meaning, i.e. following the ordinary or natural meaning of words. It means that Parliament wrote in the Act exactly what it wanted and that to determine the will of Parliament. It is come from a fundamental aspect of British common law: the legal supremacy of parliament. It is therefore treated very seriously, and it is not surprising that the literal approach is the most important and most commonly followed method of interpretation. However, it does have serious criticisms, because it is easy to find absurd consequences of always following a literal interpretation.
An example from the area of contract law is Fisher v Bell [1961]; he had a flick knife on his shop’s window and was found a guilty with offering for sale. According to the low it was decided at the placing of an article in a window did not equal to offering. In other words, the Literal Rule considers what the legislation says rather than what it means.
In Whitley v. Chappell [1868], it was illegal to impersonate any person entitled to vote. A dead person who was not entitled to vote, so therefore was acquitted. Clear words must be applied - even if the result is absurd per Lord Edmund-Davies in Stock, i.e. the judges only role is in determining what unclear words mean.
It will always be used unless an absurdity would result. The problem with the literal rule is that although it sounds simple, there is not always a prescribed meaning for words - the ordinary meaning may not be so ordinary at all - problems finding the natural meaning of words frequently occur.
Golden Rule
The golden rule – if the literal interpretation leads to an absurdity, then modify the interpretation to a less obvious meaning. An absurdity may arise from a literal meaning of the words, alternatively it may arise from the policy implications of a literal interpretation.
It was defined in Grey v. Pearson [1857] 6 HL Cas 61,106, "the ordinary sense of the words is to be adhered to, unless it would lead to absurdity, when the ordinary sense may be modified to avoid the absurdity but no further."
Re Sigsworth [1935], son murdered his mother and tried to claim his inheritance. There is a rule that no-one should profit from their wrong, this overruled a clear statutory right of a son to inherit on intestacy. Hence statutes may be modified on grounds of public policy, as one was in this case (the principle was an existing common law principle that would have applied had she had died having made a will). Although this a clear breach of the rule that clear and unambiguous words cannot be ignored, it surely accorded with Parliament's wishes.
The Mischief rule
Thus rule goes much further than either the golden rule or purposive approach. It allows for a much fuller investigation into the position of the statute in relation to the law taken as a whole and gives the courts more breadth of views in their construction of the statute.
Smith v. Hughes [1960], a prostitute solicited from inside a building to the street. The question was whether this prohibition applied to prostitutes who solicited from windows or balconies, which are literally not "in a street". A private building was held to be a "street or public place" for the purposes of the Act to avoid the mischief of harmful action in this case annoying the public, they found her guilty.
The Purposive Approach
The purposive approach is similar to the mischief rule, but emphasising the intention of the legislature instead of the defect in the previous law. Its effect is usually achieved by the literal rule, since Parliament unsurprisingly tends to enact its intention. It was difficult before Pepper v. Hart, and still is, to an extent to determine Parliament's intent by judicial interpreting with some flexibility. .
In Coltman v Bibby Tankers [1987], the man was killed on a board of a ship as result of defective equipment. Employer is liable for his negligence under the Employer Liability Act [1969], but definition of the word “equipment” does not include word “ship”. However House of Lords “fill in the gaps” and found employer liable.
In conclusion, traditional analyses of rules and principles of statutory interpretation are important. They are part of explanation for how statutes interpreted by judges. The ability of a Judge to carefully take time to think through the full gravity of the law in which they make is a substantial power. Britain’s entry into the EU has weakened judges’ powers. The House of Lords has to be the highest appeal court that can reached. Now the European Court of Justice has replaced their role as the court of last instance, removing UK judges from the top of the court hierarchy. However when we consider statutory interpretation there is a further limitation to the extent that rules of interpreting statutes can apply to the legal system and what Parliament are intended to say.
- Phil Harris “An introduction to Law”, 1997 fifth edition p. 200-204
- Alix Adams “Law for Business Studies”, 1996 second edition p. 33-35
- Cownie F. Bradney A. “English Legal System” 1996 p. 110-122
- Dudley Moore “Statutory Interpretation” // The Legal Executive journal of the institute of legal executives, August 2002
