N.B.

This i s a Working Paper

circulated f o r comment
and c r i t i c i s m only. It
does n o t r e p r e s e n t t h e
f i n a l views of t h e Lam
C o m m i s s i o n or of the
S c o t t i s h Law C o d s s i o n

LAW COMMISSIOIT AND SCOTTISH LAV CONMISSIOB

Published Working Paper on

THF: I ~ R F ' R E T A T I O H OF STATlTTES

The Law Commissions gill be

g r a t e f u l i f comments can be
s e n t i n by 31st December 1967.
A ll correspondence s h o u l d b e
addressed t o : -

IY, Ab rahams ,
Law Commission,
Lacon House,
Theobalds Road,
London, W. C. 1.

(01-405 8700, Extension 250)

 1 - 4
Q u e s t i o n s Raised and T e n t a t i v e Anslwers a 4
I1 THE PROBLEM STATED .e. . 0 0 " D O 0 . . 0 . . 5 - 47
P r e l i m i n a r y Conclusions and L i n e s o f E n q u i r y 47
111 THE RELEVKT\TCE OF COi\<PARATIVEbATEEIAL g e e 18 - 21
IV THE PRINCIPLES 01' STATUTORY Iil\iTI;iiPET:\_TION. 2 2 - 65
The iiiischief Golden and L i t e r a l
Rules .,*. 22 - 27
Presumptions of I n t e n t and Canons of
Construction o o o . e e 28 - 33
Extraneous Aids t o C o n s t r u c t i o n e 34 - 39
Assessment and Zuggestions f o r
Improvement ... e..*

Head@? Side-notes P u n c t u a t i o n , e t c
* e * a 0 0 40 - 60
4 v - 45
The Golden Rule .-. . e o 46
The I'Iischief Rule . e . 0 0 . e o 0 47
Admissible Rids t o C o n s t r u c t i o n 48 - 60
Clyiticism o f t h e E x i s t i n g Law 48
The Admi s s i b i l i t y o f Parlia,,ientary
uroceediilks ..- 49 - 60

V EXF'LAJTATORY I~.ATEI?IALTO -4CCOMPWT

' Y BILLS a m e
64 - 67
VI T I E PRkCTICAL PROCESS Or" CHANGE . e . . o e o o o
68 - 72
O u t l i n e of a Suggested Re-formulation 0 0 0 74
73 - 74

A. Note by hi. Manfred Simon on French Law,

B. O b s e r v a t i o n s by P r o f e s s o r G. Leibholz on German La7v.
Observations by P r o f e s s o r K a r l Larenz on German Law,
C. Observations by Kr. Karl Sidenbladh and hIr. Ulf K.
Nordenson on Swedish Law.
D. Observations by Kra P e r F e d e r s p i e l on Danish Law
O b s e r v a t i o n s by Nra lie N. Madsen on Danish Law and
Relevant C i r c u l a r s .
E. A S e l e c t i v e L i s t of K a t e r i a l on t h e I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of
S t a t u t e s p u b l i s h e d i n A u s t r a l i a , Mew Zealand, Canada
and t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s o f America.
 _I_._ULTrn
I. Itern X V I I o f t h e Law Commission's F i r s t Programme r e a d s a s
. .

S-
fO l l O V ~ :
!!It i s evident t h a t - a pr.ogramme of l a w , r e f o r m , which
must n e c e s s a r i l y use t h e instrument of l e g i s l a t i o n , depends
f o r i t s s u c c e s s f u l realisatS,on..i,on.:the. i n t e r p r e t a t i o n given
by t h e c o u r t s t o t h e enactments in-which.'the'programme. is,,'
" embodied, The . r u l e s .of :.stati&ory i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , although
i n d i v i d u a l l y reasonably c l e a r , a r e o f t e n d i f f i c u l t t o appl$,
p a r t i c u l a r l y where'.they ap9:ea.r.. . ..to c o n f l i c t ivit,h one. another
and when. t h e i r . h i e r a r c h y of importance i s not c l e a r l y
e s t a b l i s h e d . T.he d i f f i c u l t y w
. h ; f a c e s t h e c o u r t s may be
. . . . . . enhanced by pre.seiit .lim.i.t.a$.ipn n 'the-means o t h e r than
. .yo.r.; . . . . . . . . . . . . .
reference t o the actual text o he' s t a t u t e ,
a s c e r t a i n i n g t h e i n t e n t i o n o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e . These 4 .

d i f f i c u l t i e s a r e ' . e s p e c i a l l y no. e a b l e wher,e,-E n g l i s h c o u r t s ,

a r e c a l l e d u p o n . t o ' i n t e r p r e t 1 s l a t i o n implementing. . , , .

.'
. i . n t e r n a t i o n a 1 .conventions. In some..Commonwealrth' and o t h e r
c o u n t r i e s d i p f e r e h t approaches. t o . . t h e ..problejm.o f . i n t e r p r e t -
. ing- l e g i s l a t i v e ' . struments have.:been .adopted,which merit
consideration.. '.
. . . . . .
. . . . , . .

"Recommende_d: t h a t an examination b e made o f t h e rules

f o r the interpretation.of st a t u t e s.
-
"Examining a,qe-: t h e Commission."
.,

Paregraphs 20 and 21 o f t h e F i r s t Programme of t h e S c o t t i s h

..... Law Cbmmission a l s o . r e f e r @ t o the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of s t a t u t e s i n
'the following- terms:- . .
. . .
. . ..

. .
'Ynterpr_etati s n ' o f S t a t u t e s . . . . .
......
.-.
. .
.. . . . . ,, . - .. ,

. . . I! 20. ... ..?Yerecornmend t h a t .-$he':law r e l a t i n g t o t h e

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of sta)$utes.. should
. . b e . examined ..by
'us.
.. . .
. . . . . If 21 We would ,propose.t o examine ' t h e .recognised r u l e s f o r
. .
t h e .interpretation of s t a t u t e s i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e i r
. . . . --consistencyw i t h each other, and $ h e i r 'adequacy f o r . t h e
ascertaining of..theintention of t h e Legislature,
.C.learly, we mu.st be i n c l o s e c o n s u l t , a t i o n w i t h t h e Law
C.ommisk.ion about t h i s . , g-hoposal .. . .
. . . . . .-.. . . .
......
''.L .
"? . . . .
. .

2, The "aim.of this Torking:'P*per 'is to;:.indic.ate for t h e

, . .... . . .i . .. . . . . . ....
i :
~

purpa-se:..of.,invi-t.ing' comment
..
some of t h e :. .preliminary l i n e s . o f
. : , ' .
. .
, ,
.
enquiry which' $. 1.-. ":have f pllowed i n c a r r y i n g out t h e examina t i on
......

r e f e r r e d t o i n Item X V I I of t h e Law Commission's F i r s t Programme

and i n paragraphs 20 and 21 of t h e F i r s t Programme o f t h e ..

S c o t t i s h Law Commission, and some o f the questions t o which they

have given rise.

-1 -
. .
 Q?

3. To the e x t e n t t h a t t h e Working Paper s u g g e s t s answers t o t h e

cj +i

q u e s t i o n s which i t r a i s e s , t h e s e answers should n o t be regarded

a s e x p r e s s i n g our concluded o r even, i n every p a r t i c u l a r , agreed
views. They have been formulated i n o r d e r t o s t i m u l a t e and
c o n c e n t r a t e comment on t h e i s s u e s which appear t o u s most
r e l e v a n t t o any p r o p o s a l s f o r reform.
2
4. The q u e s t i o n s r a i s e d , and t e n t a t i v e answers suggested, by
t h e IVorking Paper may be summarized a s follows:-
QUESTION TENTATIVE UNSVER

A.
(see What is t h e g e n e r a l Occasional f a i l u r e o f
paragra h s n a t u r e of t h e communication between t h e
I t o 17p c r i t i c i s m which may be l e g i s l a t u r e and the
made o f t h e Br.itiish c o u r t s ; an i m p e r f e c t l y
system o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n co-ordinated body o f
of statutes? legal, p r i n c i p l e s causing
d i f f i c u l t y t o judges and
litigants. The suggested
l i n e s of enquiry.are i n t o
charges o f excessive
l i t e r a l i s m , o f over
s t r i c t l i m i t a t i o n on
extraneous a i d s t o
interpretation and o f
inadequacy o f a v a i l a b l e
aids.

B.
(see How f a r , if a t a l l , It would n o t be d e s i r a b l e
paragraphs should g e n e r a l r u l e s f o r t o c o d i f y t h e rules i n
22-27, 40, the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f any comprehensive way.
46-47. and s t a t u t e s be l a i d down by I t would be d e s i r a b l e t o
I . 66-72. ) legislation? r e f o r m u l a t e and c l a r i f y
c e r t a i n guiding
principles.

(see Should any change be It should be s t a t e d t h a t

paragraphs made i n the s t a t u s o f p u n c t u a t i o n should be
41-45 and 71 s h o r t and l o n g t i t l e s , t r e a t e d i n t h e same way
p r c a b l e s , headings, a s t h e enacted words, and
side-notes and , t h a t long t i t l e s ,
punctuation? preambles, headings and
side-notes should be
a v a i l a b l e a s context o f
....
the enacting material
 QUESTION
D.
(see Should l e g i s l a t i v e
paragraphs a c t i o n be taken i n
28-33) r e s p e c t o f ( a ) canons
of con s t r u c ti on ;
( b ) presumptions o f .
intent?
E.
(see How f a r should t h e r u l e s
paragraphs against admissibility of
34-399 48-60 extraneous a i d s t o
and 71) i n t c r p r e t a t i o n be
modified: -
( a ) w i t h respect t o
the r c p o r t s o f Royal
Commissions and s i m i l a r
committees and i n regard
t o c o n v e n t i o n s and
treaties
(b) w i t h respect t o
r e p o r t s o f parliamentary
proceedings -
i n so f a r a s they a r e
r e l e v a n t t o t h e mischief
i n t e n d e d t o be remedied
o r t o t h e intended n a t u r e
and scope o f t h e remedy?
F.
(see Should m a t e r i a l bc
paragraphs produced g i v i n g t h c
6 i -67) reasons f o r and
commenting on B i l l s ,
which would b c
available f o r
i n t e r p r e t a t i v e purposes?
-3-
( a ) Canons o f c o n s t r u c t i o n
a r e r u l e s o f language,
n o t r u l e s o f law and i t
would be i n a p p r o p r i a t e t o
change t h e i r s’cztus.
( b ) I t would i n g e n e r a l
n o t bc d e s i r a b l e t o d e a l
w i t h presumptions o f
i n t e n t by l e g i s l a t i o n ,
although t h c r e may be a
case f o r s t a t u t o r y
prcsumptions o f
legislative intsnt i n
c e r t a i n areas.
( a ) and ( b ) a r e i n t e r -
related. Mischief o r
remedy i n d i c a t e d by ( a )
may be modified by ( b ) .
S t r o n g arguments and
comparative evidcnce can
be produced i n favour o f
t h e view t h a t t h e r e i s no
justification f o r the .
continuance o f exclusion-
a r y r u l c s and t h a t a s i n
many o t h c r j u r i s d i c t i o n s
any such a v a i l a b l e
m a t 6 r i a l should be
admissiblc, sub j c c t t o
i t s relcvancc b c i n g l e f t .
t o thc; d i s c r c t i o n o f t h e
court, On t h e o t h e r hand
i t can bc p e r s u a s i v e l y
argued,in respect o f ( b ) 9
t h a t t h e admission o f such
m a t e r i a l would imposc an
unreasonable burdcn on
t h o s c t o whom t h e s t a t u t e
i s dircctcd, I t may bc
t h a t t h c nccd f o r t h i s
cxtrancous m a t e r i a l would
be rcduccd i f r e f e r e n c e
c o u l d be madc t o an
c x p l a n a t o r y mcmorandum a s
suggested by t h e answer
t o q u e s t i o n F. below.
The cxpericncc o f o t h e r
c o u n t r i c s suggests t h a t
such m a t e r i a l would be o f
valuc. Thc m a t e r i a l ,
which might t a k c t h e f o r m
o f a mcmorandum on t h e
p a t t e r n o f Notes on
Clauses, -might be
publishcd with t h e B i l l
and amended, i f n e c e s s a r y s
d u r i n g i t s course through
Parliarncnt.
 QUESTION U ?-r

-..si

0.
(see Should s p e c i a l p r o v i s i o n be
paragraphs made f o r -1egi-slati-on1.
73-74) implementing i n t e r n a t i o n a l
conventions, e i t h e r enacted
a s s t a t u t e s i n their a c t u a l -
terms o r r e l e v a n t a s p a r t
o f the context of t h e
enacting s t a t u t o r y
provisions?
..
of relevant .
:onventions and t m c i t i c s
is concLrned, oee t h e
answer t o E o above. Th-1
f'urther q u e s t i o n as t~
. what p r i n c i p l e s o f
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n should
apply t o such convcntio:-s
o r t r e a t i e s when a c o u c ' r
h a s t o d e a l w i t h thcm a s
enacted law o r a s p a r t G f
i t s c o n t e x t , should be
d e f e r r e d pending t h e
outcome of t h e work which
h a s been c a r r i e d out by
t h e I n t G r n a t i o n a l Law
dommission on t h e Law o f
Treaties. A number o f
p o i n t s may e v e n t u a l l y
a r i sc f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n .
.

-PROBLEM STATED
5, The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f s t a t u t e s a s a s u b j e c t . .for considera-
t i o n by a law reforming body p r e s e n t s s p e c i a l d i f f i c u l t i e s , It
i s manifest a t t h e o u t s e t t h c t i t i s n o t a t o p i c tvherc t h e r e a r e
c l e a r - c u t d e f e c t s f o r which, once diagnosed, l e g i s l a t i v e
i n t e r v e n t i o n can promise a dramatic c u r e . Sir CarLeton A l l e n ,
a f t e r a very f u l l d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e problcms o f sf t a t u t o r y
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , wrote t h a t although " i t cannot be pretended t h a t
t h e p r i n c i p l a s o f s t a t u t o r y i n t c r p r e t a t i o n form t h e most
s u i t a b l e , c o n s i s t e n t o r l o g i c a l l y s a t i s f y i n g p a r t o f our
jurisprudence J . . . . . . . . . we a r e d r i v e n i n t h e end t o t h e
u n s a t i s f a c t o r y c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e whole m a t t e r u l t i m a t e l y turr-s
on t h e impalpable and i n d e f i n a b l e elements o f j u d i c i a l s p i r i t and
attitude" ( I J u s t i c e F r a n k f u r t e r said: "Though m y b u s i n e s s
throughout most o f my p r o f e s s i o n a l l i f e h a s been w i t h s t a t u t e s ,
I b r i n g no answers. I s u s p e c t t h e answers t o problems o f a n .
a r t l i e i n i t s exercise. t'(2) Much t h e same approach was
r e f l e c t e d i n the remarks o f Lord R e i d ( 3 ) l n t h e debate on t h e
~~~~ ~

, ...
aw i n t h-.-,e -Making;
( 1 ) .E----.--- -- ' 7 t h e d , , a t pp. 526 and 529.
( 2 ) "Some r e f l e c t i o n s on i h e , readin,g o f ' s t a t u t e s ! ' ; , P r o c e e d i n g s -
.,

.... . t h e Bar. o f. tkie C i t y of Nevy._,.York,

....of . (1947) -213' a % pp. , 216-70
( 3 ) O f f i c i a l Report-,.;Lords, A6th Novembcr 1966, ColS~.):277--127S3
 *'

bi
Law CommissSoc's F i r s t Report when, a f t e r r e f e r r i n g t o t h e

d i f f i c u l t i z s and l a n g e r s o f i n n o v a t i o n s i n t h i s f i s l d founded
upon " t h e s p i r i t o f t h e Act", he remarked: "1 am n o t going t o

p r o n o u c e i n advarce t h a t i t w i l l n o t mork, I am w a i t i n g with

a v i d i t y t o skb whzt tiicse new i d e a s a r s 3 b u t I am n o t w a i t i n g

w i t h any optimism.'' A s i m i l a r scepticism was expressed by

L o r d :;ilberfor.ce on the same occasion when he said: "I have

always doubte:. whether s t a t u t o r y i n t t r p r e t a t i o n i s a genuine
s u b j e c t for t b c Law Commission a t a l l . I suspect i t i s what i s

nowadays popular11 c a l l e d a non-clibject. I do n o t t h i n k t h a t

law reform can r e a l l y grapple w i t h i t . It i s a matter f o r

e d u c a t i n g t h e judges and p r a c t i t i o n c r s and hoping t h a t t h e work

i s b e t t c r done, !? (4)
6. Tt i s t r u e t h a t i n t h e g r e a t m a j o r i t y o f c a s e s i n our, a s
i n o t h e r , developed l e g a l systcms t h s dc;cisions of t h c court,s
on qv-i-stions o f s t a t u t o r y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n do n o t cause t h e c o u r t s
themselves p a r t i c u l a r d i f f i c u l t y o r 9 once madep give r i s e t o t h e
c r i t i c i s m t h a t t h e s t a t u t e s under c o n s i d e r a t i o n have been
wr0ngi.y Lntorpreted. But even i f thdri. i s only a small number

o f c a s e s wher;. l e g i s l a t i o n f a i l s -to achieve i t s purpose t h i s

f a i l u r e .nay be imFortant whi-re P a r l i a m e n t a r y time f o r rcmedial
amendnmt i s -73t available. Moreovcr, i f i n t h e e x c e p t i o n a l
u i f f i c u l t c a s ? which r e a c h e s t h e h i g h e r c o u r t s p r i n c i p l e s o f

i n % c r p r e t a t , i o ia r e enunciated which appear unduly t e c h n i c a l ,

obscure OT hard t o r e c o n c i l e w i t h each o t h c r , t h e y may have an
unwelconc effcict on s t a t u t o r y i n t c r p r c t a t i o n by lower c o u r t s
and by l c g a l a d v i s e r s i n d e a l i n g with s t a t u t d s which without
such guidance would probably p r e s e n t no s e r i o u s problems.
Un.satisfactorg p r i n c i p l e s o f s t a t u t o r y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n may al,so
a f f e c t t h e TOIT oi" f u t u r e s t a i u t c s ; to avoid doubt i t

-5-
 enunciated by t h e c o u r t s may s t i l l be u n s a t i s f a c t o r y even i f t h o " '
a c t u a l Ciecisicns , a s d i s t i n g u i s h e d f r o m t h e reasons which support
them, i n g e n e r a l produce s a t i s f a c t o r y r e s u l t s . We would wish t o
enphasize t h i s l a s t 3 o i n t , i n view of t h e n o t i n f r e q u e n t suggestior:
t h a t what is important i s m t what t h e c o u r t s say about s t a t u t o p y
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n b u t what t h e y i n f a c t d e c i d e i n r e g a r d t o t h e statLitc:,
(5)
ahicli come b a f o r e them.
70 S i r C a r l e ton Allen and J u s t i c e F r a n k f u r t e r while emp2?asizi7ig
the i n t r a c t a b l e n a t u r e of t h e problem c r e a t e d by s t a t u t o r y I n t e r -

p r e t a t i o n , have n e v e r t h e l e s s g a s s e d c r i t i c a l judgment on our r u l e s ,

The d i f f i c u l t ? - e s o f even a g r e a t n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y judge
Lord 3 lackburr! i n igyqz: _ ' . - ~ . e , z . r ~ Ci.O~exq-2~
(dwhere
~ o - ~ ~ l ~ s p_d_ins_oy_n, he
had t o d e c i d e v h e t h z r the Harbours, Docks and P i e r s Act 1847 imposed
l i a b i l i t y f o r 1darnai;z i r ~ a s p e c t i v eo f negligence on t h e owner of a
;Tesse:t vrhich was thrown by a storlliy s e a a g a i n s t a p i e r , have been

e C Sir CaTleton A l l e n i n t h e f o l l o w i n g terms: -

c ? . e ~ ~ z r i - b . by

''Bj -~ speech is o f t e n quoted a s a c l a s s i c a l e x p o s i t i o n o f our

--.b
p r i ~ C i p > - a~!.' s s t a 2 z t o r y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , b u t i t i s no
d i s r e s p s c t 02.' one o f t h e g r e a t e s t common lawyers o f t h e
Fiine-Leenth Cc:ntury t o say t h a t it r e a d s l i k e the w r i t h i n g s
o f (3: SOLI ia bGFi:q(T?i?'b When the mind o f a Bla.ckburn thus:
~~:,.ci??-a-,:.es
-rC i. t, i s n o t s u r p r i s i n g if l e s s e r layyers. s u f f e r
ar::.d s%rug,q!.e i n t l i e attempt t o do j u s t i c e according t o
atatu-ke 1~~~~~ (7')
, /

"The c u r r e n t 9;lglish P u l e s o f c o n s t r u c t i o n a r e simple. They

are t o o si~1p?-2~ If t h e purpose o f c o n s t r u c t i o n i s t h e
ascertax-msnj; (;f 1!!2.aning., nothing t h a t i s l o g i c a l l y r e l e v a n t
I ~ h o u l dbe ex-clude<::',, The r i g i d i t y of E n g l i s h c o u r t s i n
i n t e r + p r e t i i i g 1ang;:.age merely by read'ing i t d i s r e g a r d s t h e
f z c t thrit enaztments a r e , a s i t were , organisms vfhich
e x i s t i n the:l..r environment One. wonders whether E n g l i s h
e

judges are c o r 8 ii?c=A p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y a s t h e y p u r p o r t t c be

legal-lgo T h e ,iudgss deem themselves l i m i t e d t o reading
I
t h e x o r d s or" a st:-T.tute. But can they r e a l l y escape p l a c i n g
Ii t h e wo?ds i n t h e context of t h e i r minds, which a f t e r 221
a r e n o t a u t o x t a a p p l y i n g l e g a l l o g i c b u t r e p o s i t o r i e s of
C l s w t s of zssumptions and impressions?'' ( 0 )

(5) See e.g. 'Vi I1 - E x :,-LetUte~ I n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n a J!Tutshel-l" (1.9318)

16 -Bar -- R e v , 1
I -_A=_-

(6) (1877) 2 -kp>* Yzas, 743.

( 7 ) g p a c i . (riel) a t p. 506,
(8) c i t . (i2>2,1a t -?yo 231-2.
- I _ =

-6-
Oi
And i n j u s t i f y i n g g e n e r a l i z e d restatem;nts from t i x c t o tim.3 cf
t h e r u l e s of s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n he added:-
"Out o f them may come a s h a r p e r r e p h r a s i n g o f t h e 'sonsc:j-cms
f a c t o r s of i n t e r p r c t a t i o n ; new i n s t a n c e s may mak'z thei8i
more v i v i d but also d i s c l o s e mori: c l e a r l y t h c i r I.irnita-;j ons,
Thereby wc may a v o i d r : . g i d i t i e s which, while they a f f o x ?
more p r e c i s e formulas, d.o s o at t h e p r i c e of srai1;p:ing -i2-!:.
l i f e or t h e !.awe T o s t r i p t h c t a s k of j u d i c i a l r e a d i n g 3f
s t a t u t e s o f r u l c s t h a t 9mtz.kc o f t h e m y s t e r i e s o f a c r a f t
s c r v e s t o r e v e a l t h e t r u e e l e x e n t s of our p r o b l m . It
d e f i n e s more a c c u r a t e l y Lhe nai-xre of t h e inte1lc:etuF.l
L

r c s p o n s i b i l i t y o f a judge an? t h e r e b y s u b j c c % s h h t o r n o ~ ~ e
relevant c r i t e r i a o f criticism,, Rigorous bilalysi s a l s o
sharpens t h e r e s p e c t i v e d u t i c s of I c g i s l z t u r e and c o u r t s i n .
r e l a t i o n t o t h c making of laws and 'GO t h e i r cnforcemeni:.ir(9j
More r e c e n t l y an ou-tstanding .bmtricm work on t h c problcms of'
lawmaking and i n t c r p r c t a t i o n ' " ' h a s c h a r a c t c r i z e d -the r e f u s a l o f
t h e Housc of Lords i n j i s g a m & i ~ y ~ l - l n gCompany L i x i t c d ---
------v. Commi s s i o n ( ; ? s of I n l a n d Revt;nue ' W t o pzrmit counsel t o lef e r
t o t h e recommmdetions i n the: Report 02 t h e Royal Commissio:i o n
Income Tax (1920) as r o v e a l i n g " s t e r i l e verbalismi' and fr. t x e
wasteland o f Legalism".
8. One l i n e of c r i t i c i s m e x p l a i n s what i t conceives t o b e t h e

e x c e s s i v e l i t e r a l i s m of t h e j u d i c i a l approach t o s t a t u t c s a; a
s u r v i v i r g b u t no-,-/ ouCdated product o f OUT constitut?onal
development: -
"A73,and.oning t h e mediaeval i d e z t h z t thei2e was a
f f'undamcnlal and immutable law, t h e common law recognised
t h e l e g i s l a t i v e suprzmacy of Parliamcn'c. But t o t h e
words of t h a P a r l i a m e n t whose l i t e r a l a u t h o r i t y i t t h u s
r e c o g n i s e d i t accorded none o f th2.t aurct of respect and
gent;rosi-2';yof i n t e r p r e t a t i o n w i t h which i t surrounded i t s
owfi doct:?ines, The c o u r t s never e n t c r e d i n t o t h e s p i y j t ,
of t h e Benthamite game, b u t t r e a t e d t h e s t a t u t e throughm.t
a s an i n t e r l o p e r upon t h e rounded m a j c s t y o f -the common law,
The tendency still persists; t h e c o u r t s show a r i p e
a p p r e c i a t i o n o f i n s t i t u t i o n s of long s t z n d i n g , whether
founded fly s t a t u t e o r i n t h e common law, b u t t h e y ?-nhibit.
themselves from seis:;-ng t h e s p i r i t o f i n s t i t u t i o n s and
s i t u a t i o i i s which are i n substance t h e c r e a t i o n of modem
legislation, By r e p e r c u s s i o x draftsmen tend t o concern
themselves w i t h m i n u t i a e , s o t h a t t h e i r i n t e n t i o n may -ne

(9) J b i d a t p. 236.
(IO) 1- Process: B-csj-c Proal-ems i n t h e Makjng and
& D p l i c z t i o n o f L a q by P r o f e s s o y s H a r t and Sacks.
Cambridge, Mass. T e n t a t i v e e d . , 1953, a t p a -1265.

-7-
 !'manifest i n every p a r t i c u l a r i n s t p n c e t o upset t h e L, ,/5
hydra-headed presumptions of t h e c o u r t s i n f a v o u r of t h e
common l a w o s v ( 1 2 )

9. We do not thinlr t h a t , whatever may have been t h e p o s i t i o n

a t some p e r i o d s o f our l e g a l h i s t o r y , t h e above c r i t i c i s m s
f a i r l y r e p r e s e n t t h e p r e s e n t t h e o r y and p r a c t i c e of the B r i i i s h
c o u r t s i n r e g a r d t o t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of s t a t u t e s . We r e c o g n i s e
t h a t t h e r e have been i n r e c e n t y e a r s i n t h e c o u r t s importai?_.t;

c l a r i f i c a t i o n s of t h e p r i n c i p l e s of s t a t u t o r y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n
(13)
interpretation. That t h e s o - c a l l e d " l i t e r a l r u l e q ' does not

c o n f i n e t h e judge t o a s t e r i l e grammatical a n a l y s i s o f t h e actus,

words which he i s c a l l e d upon t o i n t e r p r e t has been emphasized by

(2-4)
Lord Somervell i n A t _ t o r n e ~ P ~ l - n ~ - e ~ rof~ Hanover
- ~ s t _ - ~ -c-

where he s a i d : -

" I t i s u n r e a l t o proceed as if t h e c o u r t looked f i r s t

a t t h e p r o v i s i o n i n d i s p u t e without knowing lrrrhether I% w3s
contained i n a Finance Act o r a P u b l i c H e a l t h A c t . The
t i t l e and g e n e r a l scope of t h e Act c o n s t i t u t e t h e
background o f t h e c o n t e x t , When a c o u r t comes t o t h e Act
i t s e l f , b e a r i n g i n mind any r e l e v a n t extraneous m a t t e r s ,
there is, in m y opinion, one compelling r u l e . The -vvhole
o r any p a r t o f t h e Act may be r e f e r r e d t o and r e l i s d on.,
I t i s , I hope, n o t d i s r e s p e c t f u l t o r e g r e t t h a t t h e sGb2ec-L
was not l e f t where S i r John K i c h o l l l e f t it i n 1826,
'The key t o t h e opening o f every law i s t h e reason and
s p i r i t of tile law - i t is- t h e 'animus imponentis' th.:
i n t e n t i o n o f t h e law-giver, expressed i n t h e law taken as :i
whole, Hence, t o a r r i v e a t t h e t r u e meaning o f any
p a r t i c u l a r p h r a s e i n a s t a t u t e , t h a t p a r t i c u l a r phrase i s
not t o be viewed detached from i t s c o n t e x t i n t h e s t a t u t e :
i t i s t o be viewed i n connection w i t h t h e whole c o n t e x t -
meaning by t h i s as well t h e t i t l e and preamble a s t h s
purview o r e n a c t i n a r t of t h e s t a t u t e ' ( S i r John l!Tichol:-
i n Bret-t -v. , B r e t t _ b8))
-_*-*_-- -*_------L- =aj* L .------- L-- -_-- ---*--> --_r_.__--* -..= I

( I 2) P r o f e s s o r E.C,S, Wade i n Dicey, &waof__the C o n s t i t u t i m ,

4 0 t h ed., 1061 I n t r o d u c t i o n , pp. c - c i , n.1 citing
R.T.E. Latham i n !'The Law and t h e Commonwealth'' i n Survey 01'
B r i t i s h C~m~_m_o_n~vealth~_Affair~, V 0 1 , i (1937) pp. 510-11 He
a l s o r e f e r s t o t h e opinion of Lord Wright i n 9 3
t h a t t h e s o - c 2 l l e d p r i n c i p l e t h a t an Act of P e r l i a m e n t should
be construed s o as n o t t o change t h e common law more than seem&
t o be unavoidable has now been d i s c r e d i t e d ,
(13) See paragraphs 27 and 40 below.
(14) [ I 9 5 7 1 A.Co 436 a t p. 473.
(15) ('1.826) 3 Add. 210 a t p , 216.

-8-
*' I n the EEGI~ c a s e f ' 6 ) l o r d Simonds said: -
"The c o n t e n t i o n of t h e Attorney-General [ . t h a t t h e g e n e r a l i 5 y
of.t h e m a c t i n g w o r d s c o n f e r r i n g t h e s t a t u s of a n a t u r a l
. born s u b j e c t on t h e l i n c a l d e s c e n d m t s of P r i n c e s s Sophia,
E l e c t r e s s o f Hanover wa,s l i m i t e d by t h e preamble t o persons,
born i n t h e l i f e t i m e o f Queen l-~nne]was, i n t h e f i r s t Glace,
met by t h e b a l d p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t where t h e e n a c t i n g p a r t of'
a s t a t u t e i s c l e a r m d unambiguous, i t cannot be cilt down
by t h e preamble, and a l a r g e p a r t oi" t h e time which t h e
hi;.aring o f t h i s c a s e .,occupied was s p e n t i n d i s c u s s i n g
a u t h o r i t i e s which wcre s a i d t o support t h a t p r o p o s i t i o n ,
I wish a t t h e o u t s e t t o e x p r e s s my d i s s e n t f r o m i t , i f i t
mcans t h a t I cannot o b t c i n a s s i s t a n c e from t h e preamble j.:i
a s c 3 r t a i n i n g t h e meaning o f t h e r e l e v a n t e n a c t i n g p a r t , ,
For words, and p a r t i c u l z r l y g e n c r a l words, cannot be read
i n i s o l z . t i o n ; t h e i r c o l o u r and c o n t e n t a r e d e r i v e d f r o m
t h e i r c o n t e x t . So i t i s t h a t I conceive i t t o be my r i g h t
and d u t y t o cxamine t?very word o f a s t a t u t e i n i t s contex;;,
and I u s e ' c o n t e x t ' i n i t s widest s e n s e , which I have
a l r e a d y i n d i c a t e d a s i n c l u d i n g n o t only o t h e r e n a c t i n g
p r o v i s i o n s of t h c same s t a t u t c , b u t i t s preamble, t h e
e x i s t i n g s t z t e of t h e law, o t h w s t a t u t e s$ -

end t h e m i s c h i e f which I can, by t h o s e and o t h e r l e g i i i m a t e

means, d i s c c r n t h e s t a t u t e was i n t e n d e d t o remedy."
And i n a l a t e r passage ( 1 7 ) L o r d Sim:onds r e f e r r e d t o : -
" t h e elementary r u l e ... t h a t no one should p r o f e s s t o
u n d c r s t a n d any p a r t o f a s t a t u t e o r o f any o t h s r document
beforc: he h a s r e a d t h e whole o f i t . U n t i l hi= h a s der-e s o ,
he i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o s a y thc?t i t or any p a r t of i t is
c l e a r or unambiguous."
10. I n our view, however, t h e c h a r g e s made a g a i n s t t h e
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n by t h e B r i t i s h c o u r t s of s t a t u t e s cannot, s o f a r
as modGrn t i m c s are concerned, bc a.1togethe.r dismissed. What
we appear t o l a c k i s a cohereiit and i n t c r n a l l y c o n s i s t e i i t body
of interpretative principles. Thus, even i f i t i s conceded
t h a t words i n q u e s t i o n i n a s t a t u t e must b c r e a d i n t h e wider
c o n t e x t o f t h c s t a t u t e a s a whole, t h e r e i s a t p r c s m t t h e
a u t h o r i t y of t h e House of L o r d s i n m.
Murray,
-
etc. (I8)that, where a d r a f t i n t e r n a t i o n a l convention i s r e f o r r e a
t o i n t h e long and s h o r t t i t l c s o f an Let, which also c o n t a i n s a
preamble s t a t i n g th2.t t h e purpose of t h e L c t i s t o g i v e e f f e c t
t o t h e convention and s e t s o u t t h e r e l e v a n t p a r t o f t h e
convention i n a schedule, i t i s n e . v e r t h e l e s s n o t proper t o
r e s o r t t o t h e conventian i n o r d e r t o g i v e a s e c t i o n o t h e r t h a n
i t s " n a t u r a l meaning". ( I 9 ) T h i s i s d i f f i c u l t t o reconcile w i t h

(16) a t pp. 460-1. (18) [ I 9 3 1 1 L * C . 126.

(17) a t P. 463 (19) See L o r d Tomlin a t p., 147,
t h e above-cited p a s s a g e s from t h e P r i n c e E r n e s t o f Hanover c a s 4 f g

wF-ic3. ivac decided when t h e House o f L o r d s was bound by i t s

previous deci-;ions, I t may b e t h a t 'che House o f L o r d s w i t h it:>
p r e s e n t power3 may have t h e o p p o r t u n i t y o f c l a r i f y i n g t h e I a v
i n this field, Meanwhile, however, t h e Court o'fAppeal i n

?!n3.omon
-
--
:U _..-.-.- I-<, Coin
-.-.----- (20)has s t a t e d
evidence o f a connectio:i
t h a t ~ k e r e%';here i s cogsnt Le$,c~ifis;3-c
- tween an i n t e r n a t i o n a l convention and an .Act under i n t e r p r e t ,
tion, a c o u r t mzy look a t t h e convention t o e l u c i d a t e t h e Act,,
a7.though the .Act nowhere makes mention o f , t h e convention.
Eere t o o t h e r z i s some u n c e r t a i n t y , as one L o r d J u s t i c e (21 )mas

doub'cfui. whether the o p i n i o n ' e x p r e s s e d c o u l d be more t h a n

obitez.
-=----i:,il.i.c'ta
:&&~ F L i n view o f t h e f a c t ' t h a t r e l e v a n t p a r t s o f t h e
A:t in. g.m,s t i o n were a mere re-enactment of e a r l i e r p r o v i s i o i i s
ic?ich haX had a c r o s s heading s t a t i n g t h a t t h e y were t o g i v e
(22)
e3fzc. t, .;,: an :igreement. Moreover, a n o t h e r L o r d J u s t i c e
:L f t h e meaning o f t h e words i n t h e Act had been
E: ,-,1lea: n d unainbiguous" r e f e r e n c e t o t h e conirention would n o t
&-;,

ir!:Torta-ce o f s e c u r i n g uniforn? i c b e r p r e t a t i o n o f laws forming

p2.T-t of' a n i n - > e r n at i o n a l l e g i s l a t i v e p a t t e r n Where t h i s
f a c t o r .is n o t ;3-'?sent t h e c o u r t s a r c more r e l u c t a n t t o elucid-at<-
t:l3 mear 1.22 0;' a s t a t u t e by r e f e r e n c e t o m a t e r i a l which i s 110;

c o n t a i n e d i n >he statu'ie i t s e l f . I n t h e r e s u l t t h c c o u r t s ar?

prcsen-Led w i t h t h e t a s k o f i n t e r p r e t i n g complex and
p e r k a p s novel i s g i s l a t i o n w i t h v e r y l i t t l e a s s i s t a n c e From
e%'cra.aeo?zszits, They may acknowledge t h e good sense and

...
 I

.' U . t o be c o n s i d e r e d i n t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f a s t a t u t e a r e t h e
p r e c e d i n g common law, t h e mischief and d e f e c t f o r which t h e
common law d i d n o t p r o v i d e , t h e remedy chosen by P a r l i a m e n t t o
c u r e t h e mischief and t h e ti-ue rezLson f o r t h e remedy; but they
a r e v e r y l i m i t e d i n t h e means they may employ t o a s c e r t a i n t h i s
m i s c h i e f , remedy o r re2son. If t h e r e i s a f a i r l y evenly
b a l a n c e d weight of argument f o r two competing c o n s t r u c t i o n s ,
a s s i s t a n c e w i l l b e sought from t h e remainder o f t h e Act, with
p o s s i b l y Borne c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e law a t t h e time when t h e Act
was passed and t h e p a t t e r n o f l e g i s l a t i o n i n t o which t h e Act
f a l l s , but o f very l i t t l e e l s e . Those b e f o r e t h e c o u r t w i l l ,
sometimes, be a b l e 'LO g i v e the background and c o n t e x t o f t h e
a c t from t h e f i n d i n g s o f a Royal Commission o r a d e p a r t m e n t c l
committee b u t w i l l n o t b c a b l e t o r e l y on i t s recornmcndations.
I t may very w e l l be, however, t h a t t h e r e i s no such a d m i s s i b l e
s o u r c e o f background m a t e r i a l which i t may be p o s s i b l e t o p u t
d i r e c t l y before the court. There may, t h e r e f o r e , b e 8

c o n s i d e r a b l e gap i n t h e i n f o r m a t i o n a t t h e d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e
c o u r t about t h e c o n t e x t and background o f an enactmcnt, a s
compared with t h e i n f o r m r t i o n a v a i l a b l e t o t h o s e b e f o r e t h e
court. I n s o far as i t may be r n a t c r i a l t o t a k e i n t o account
t h e purpose o f the enactmcnl t h i s w i l l , g e n e r a l l y speaking, have
t o t a k e t h e f o r m o f argument based upon g e n e r a l knowledge o f
which t h c c o u r t takes j u d i c i a l n o t i c e , combined w i t h hypotheses,
f o r which some support w i l l b e sought i n t h e w o r d s o f t h e k t
itself. T h i s p r o c e s s can be h i g h l y c a s u i s t i c a l and s p e c u l a ' t i v e .

A government department f o r example which h a s been r e s p o n s i b l e

f o r promotion o f an ixt, m7.y be s e e k i n g t o argue f o r a
p a r t i c u l a r c o n s t r u c t i o n i n r c l a t i o n t o a s i t u a t i o n about vrhich
no s p e c i f i c i n t e n t i o n was e x p r e s s e d i n t h z s t a t u t e and which,
indeed, was perhaps n o t contcmplzted a t t h c time o f i t s enact.:<,
L:I. piay have t o base - - U s . arguments a s t o t h e g e n c r a l p o l i c y
o f t h e Act almost e n t i r e l y upon t h e c h o i c e and p a t t c r n o f t h e
language employed. T h i s may, i n f a c t , b e c n t i r e l y a d v e n t i t i o u s

-4 1 -
 I ,

L, ' s
i n rz:'-ation t o the p o i n t b e i n g a r g u e d , b u t t h e r e may be no means
Lo hying b e f o r e t h e c o u r t any a d m i s s i b l e s t a t e m e n t o f t h e r e l e v a n t
o b j e c t i v e s o r p o l i c y which might s e r v e as a guide.
-1 2 , The d i f f i c u l t i e s which may f a c e t h e c o u r t s i n t h e circum-
s t a n c e s describe<. i n the p r e c e d i n g p a r a g r a 9 h may be i l l u s t r a t e d
s y r e f e r e n c e t o S e c t i o n I 6 of t h e B e t t i n g and Gaming Act 1960.
T h i s r e q u i r e d t h h t a l l s t a k e moneys must be d i s p o s e d o f t o t h e
, ~ l a y e ~a ss winnii?g>s a i d t h a t no o t h e r payment snould b e r e q u i r e d
f o r a p e r s o n t o t a k e p a r t i n gaming, w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n of an

airnual s u b s c r i p t i o n for membership of a c l u b , o r a f i x e d sum of

+none7 determined I e f o i - e the gaming began. From such i n d i c a t i o n s
--.s t h e r e arc i;). tlis P a r l i a m e n t a r y h i s t o r y r e l a t i n g t o t h e s e
(?5j
9rDv?.;ioi1Ej i l %a?nldseem t h a t t h e y were p a r t o f a group of
' .I..-- -i:n:.ents d6sign.ed t o prevent t h e commercial o r g a n i s a t i o n of

,<;aiiC'iigand "LO ens'iire t h a t c a s i n o s i n t h e i r C o n t i n e n t a l f o r m would

-., ;> -!! -!.>ep r o f j t z . b l e .
The exzmpl.es g i v e n by t h e Lo.rd C h a n c e l i o r i n
(26)
fhle S e : : o ~ <X:ea3.ing;
. d e b a t e i n t h e House o f Lords o f t h e k i n d of

!:.c;:zpgz2 j.l?.te:tided to b e covcred by t h e f i x e d charge p r o v i s i o n were

- z - d rn<,ncy vghich i s charged f o r .,he u s e of a c a r d room a t a s o c i a l
c1v.b OP 6 c'ra-ge ~1ad.ef o r 2i1 evening s e s s i o n a t a bridge! clu5. In
(27)
--
. '

c z s e of T,. 13i. -.:':?.laz;

=i.>.-.s --- - _ . ~(~~ee.~?c:!andisinR)_.Ltd.
._____ v.,SLoke_I I
i t had
, -.; , e a h e l d t.hat i n 3 game s i m i l a r t o r o u l e t t e t h e charge of s i m e i l c e
.fo??eazh s p i 6 . of .';lie wheel was a c o n t r a v e n t i o n o f t h e s e c t i o n . On
(28)
t h c ' O t , ? i l t T h a d , i n -the case of &!lLls-x7 )Jackj..non i t was h e l d
.Lhat a charge of 25 p e r shoe o f chemin d e -- f e r was p e r m i s s i b l e on
--_U_

:;roixr_3 t 9 a - k a A o e was a n a t u r a l and c o n v e n t i o n a l b r e a k i n p l a y ,

Ib ha5 b t e n fcund a s a f E c t at Q u a r t e r Sessions t h z t t h e chzrge i n

t h e c a s e of t h e p a r t i c u l a r c l u b i n q u e s t i o n was n o t e x c e s s i v e b u t i n
(29)
the the vi.ew of the Divi s 5 onal C our t
See CffSz=ial R e p o r t , Commons - 5 t h Itlay 1960, c o l s . 1294 and
13-98. Ffee a l s o Report of S t a n d i n g Commit-bee D, 22nd March
??Gapp ? * and 1050 and O f f i c i a l R e p o r t , Lords; Z3rd May
I25s C D i S ,. ? I32-3 e

O f f i c i a l I i e p o r t , 23rd Il,lay 1969, col. 1133.

1;,Xe
[ I 9 6 3 2 q o B o 340.
[ 4 961; 2 &.Bo 96,
A t p.

-1 2-
. ..
 i
.>

Parliament was n o t concerned w i t h t h e amount o f t h e charge.

Yet i f any c h a r g e may be made f o r p l a y which a s i n hiills v.
Mackinnon l a s t s f o r roughly f o r t y - f i v e minutes t o one hour
i t i s c l e a r l y p o s s i b l e f o r gaming t o c o n t i n u e t o be p r o f i t a b l e
i n a way which would appear i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e g e n e r a l
i n t e n t i o n expressed i n t h e P a r l i a m e n t a r y h i s t o r y .
The d e c i s i o n i n Hi-lls v.-&sc_k_innon h a s beell r e f e r r e d t o
(30)
a s ''one of t h e more b i z a r r e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s o f t h e Act",
but t h i s c r i t i c i s m underestimates t h e d i f f i c u l t y f a c i n g t h e
D i v i s i o n a l Court i n d e c i d i n g what meaning was t o be given t o
the expression: Ita f i x e d sum of money d-etermined b e f o r e t h e
gaming began!'. The apparent i n t e n t i o n of P a r l i a m e n t might
however have been more e f f e c t i v e l y r e a l i z e d had i t bcen
p o s s i b l e t o combine a s t a t u t o r y formula w i t h some a d m i s s i b l e
s t a t e m e n t o f purpose i l l u s t r a t e d by examples of p e r m i t t e d a n d

prohibited charges.
14 D i f f i c u l t i e s o f communication between t h e l e g i s l a t o r and
t h e c o u r t s a r e p e r h a p s most a c u t e l y experienced where t h e
former i s l e g i s l a t i n g i n a f i e l d i n which t h e c o u r t s a r e
p a r t i c u l a r l y c o n s c i o u s o f b a s i c p r i n c i p l e s of t h e common law
( t o which d i f f e r e n t judges may g i v e a d i f f e r e n t weight) and
f o r t h i s r e a s o n have developed presumptions o f i n t e n t which
they aLtribute t o Parliament and which may influence their
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the r e l e v a n t statutes. Thus, i n Lsndon and

,n- 1 3 t h S e p t , , 1966.

-1 3 -
I

-Railwag Company' v.. Berriman(31 t h e t a s k b e f o r e

_p_
U r >

t h e House o f L o r d s was t o i n t e r p r e t t h e meaning o f " r e p a i r i n g "

i n t h e P r e v e n t i o n of AcciGents Rules 1902. I n holding t h a t
" r e p a i r i n g " should n o t i n c l u d e o i l i n g and c l e a n i n g , and
t h e r e f o r e t h a t t h c respon?dnt had no claim undcr t h e F a t a l
Acciclents A c t s i n respac-i; of t h e dcath o f h e r husband, when
engaged i n o i l i n g s i g n a l l i n g connections without t h e lookout
r e q u i r e d by t h e Rules where men were "working s i n g l y o r i n
gangs on or neilr l i n e s of r a i l w a y ...... for t h e purpose o f
r e - l a y i n g or x p a i r i n g t h e permanent way" L o r d Macmillan
said: ( 3 2 )

"It must be borne i n mind th?.t while t h e s t a t u t e and

r u l e have t h e b e n e f i c e n t purpose of p r o v i d i n g
p r o t e c t i o n f o r workmen, t h e i r c o n t r a v c n t i o n i n v o l v e s
p e n a l consequcnces under S e c t i o n I 1 of t h e Act.
Wherc p c n a l t i e s for i n f r i n g e m e n t s are imposed i t i s
n o t l e g i t i m a t e t o s t r e t c h t h e language of 8 r u l e ,
hcxever b e n e f i c e n t i t s i n t e n t i o n , beyond t h e f a i r and
o r d i n a r y meaning of i t G language. "
Y e t i n t h e same case L o r d Wright9 d i s s e n t i n g with L o r d J o w i t t ,
came t o t h e " c l e a r conclusion" ("'that " r e y a i r i n g " included

m a i n t a i n i n g i n good working o r d c r and hence t h e o i l i n g with

(31) [ 1 9 k 6 ] r i . C a 278, See also P r i c e v o C 1 a u d . m [ I 9 6 7 1

I 'iJ,IILK,575 i n which thc: House of L o r d s ( a f f i r m i n g t h e
CPU"%- 05 S e g s i o i l n 68; . - S O LT , 6 r wcre conc riled
with t h e meaning 01 'I?uilding3 in4?ho B u i l u i n g ?Safety,
Health ancl Welfare) R e g u l a t i o n s 1948. I t was h e l d
t h a t a vorkman j o i n i n g broken w i r e s o f a neon l i g h t i n g
insta3.lati-on on t h e f a c e o f a b u i l d i n g h e l d i n p l a c e by
clamps a t t a c h e d t o ;?ins d r i v e n i n t o t h e b u i l c i n g was n o t
engaged on " p e p a i r o r maintenance of a b u i l d i n g " , and t h e
abscnce o f adeQuate guards t o t h e warking p l a t f o r m o r
p l a c c , yvhich werep2zscribcd by %he R e g u l a t i o n s , d i d n o t
t h z r e f o - e give r i s e 'GO l i a b i l i t y . The d e c i s i o n r a i s e s
t h e queslior, whether t h e makers of t h e R e g u l a t i o n s
Intendecl t o make a d i s t i n c t i o n betwecn t h e worknax i n t h e
c8se and a workman engaged i n p o i n t i n g $he brickwork of
the building. If t h e y d i d n o t , c o n s i d e r i n g t h a t b o t h
f e l l w i t h i n t h e s o c i a l purpose o f t h c R e g u l a t i o n s , i t
might f u r t h e r bc asked why t h c r c was a f a i l u r c o f
communi<a t i o n betwezn t h e makcrs of t h e R e g u l a t i o n s and
t h e cou:7tso

--14.-
.' U which t h e case was c o n c t r n e d , L o r d Wright (34) said:

''1 cannot SCC any d i f f c r e n c e i n t h i s c o n t e x t bstween r e p a i r

and maintenancc. P r e v c n t i o n we a r c t o l d i s b e t t e r t h m
cure but c i t h e r process i s r c p a i r . Such I t h i n k i s tY.2
n a t u r a l . and o r d i n a r y USC: o f words: t h e p l a i n man woulc'.
i I O t , I 8in convinced, rc=gard t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between
maintenance an2 r e p a i r a s o t h c r than u n p r a c t i c a l and
arbitrary. T h i s i s p a r t i c u l a r l y t r u e when a p p l i e d t o a
measure :Like t h i s . Its o b j e c t i s t o p r o t e c t ancl save
human ii:Pe ...... I t i s however s a i d 'chat a s t h e ikt
imposes a p e n a l t y f o r a b r e x h , i t must be c o n s t r u e d a s
s t r i c t l y as p o s s i b l e i n favour o f t h e o f f c n d e r . Therc i s
some __ z u t l i o r i t y i n s u p p o r t of' t h i s argument b u t none .so fzr
as i know i n t h e c a s e o f n e a s u r e s l i k e t h e p r e s s n t . Su:h
a measure must b e c o n s t r u e d f a i r l y , no doubt, b u t s t i l l ,
* as far a s i s r e a s o n a b l e and proper s o as t o achieve t h e
declaretl o b j e c t of t h e measure. Most measures o f a
remedial c h a r a c t c r , such as F a c t o r y i i c t s and a g r e a t mzlny
o t h e r s , have p e n a l t y c l a u s e s , b u t I have never known t h a t
circum.stance b e i n g regarded a s a ground f o r a narrow and
pedentic con.struction. What i s paramount i s t h c
p r o t z c t i o n or b e n e f i t of t h e workcr, whose r i g h t t o claim
dafiizges i s govi;rn.ed by z . f a i r aiic? l i b e r 3 1 i n t e r p r e t a t i o n
o f Jchs enac tiiient s f .
iyhere eminent judges a. t - t h e l e v e l of t h e House o f L o r 2 s can t.hus

differ a s t o t h e "orclinaryff meaning oQ a r e g u l c t i o n and when

co-nnsel i n t h e c a s e t h i n k i t n e c e s s a r y t o refGr 'CO t h e Oxford
E n g l i s h D i c t i o n a r y , a w i l l of 1577, M i l t o n ' s " P a r a d i s c L o s t " and
Dr, Johnson t o determine tlic meaning o f " r e p a i r " , i t i s h a r d t o
avoid ~ h c ;Lonclusion t h a t t h e p r o t a g o n i s t s a r c engaged i n a
somewha L u n r e a l v e r b a l c o n t e s t . The d i v z r g i n g meanings
contended f o r woulcl scem u l t i m a t e l y t o depend on d i f f e r e n t
concepts of' t h e p o l i c y u n d e r l y i n g t h e r e g u l a t i o n vrhich, f o r
whatever r c a s o n , h a s n o t cominuniczted i t s e l f with s u f f i c i e n t
clarity, Even i f t h e d e c i s i o n oi' t h e House o f Lords ( c o n t r m y
t o t h e views of t h e two Law Lords and a unanimous Court o f
Appeal) i s zssuriied L o b e t h e c o r r e c t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f the
r e g u l a t i o n , t h c r e s u l t c m n o t b e regarded as a l t o g e t h e r
s a t i s f a c t o r y , in.volving a s i t does t h e t i n e and expense o f
hearings a t three instanccs.
i 5* We would n o t wish t o suggcst t h a t t h e c o u r t s are n o t
t h e n s e l x s a m r e t h a t sometimes t h e r e may b e a l a c k o f
corrcspondcnce betwecn what i n a g e n e r c l sense nay b e c a l l e d t h e

- _
I-

(34.) ht ?. 301 .
-1 5-
 '?9

i n t e n t i o n of P a r l i a m e n t md t h e i n t e r p r c t E t i o n which a c o u r t
feels bound t o g i v e t o a p a r t i c u l a r s t a t u t e . Inclecd, p a r t o r
t h e evidence i n favour of t h e v i m t h z L t t h e m i s a problem
r e g a r d i n g t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i on of' s t a t u t c s j u s t i f y i n g i n v e s t i gation
i s t o be found- i n 'che o b s s r v z t i o n s or" judgks t o t h i s e f f e c t .
Thus i n Inldnd Revenue Commissioners v
-, ( 3 5 ) L o r d Reid

said:
W h a t w d n u s t l o o k f o r i s t h e i n t e n t i o n of Parliament and I
also f i n d i t d i f f i c u l t t o b e l i e v e t h a t Parliaincnt ever
r e a l l y intended t h e conscqucnces which flow f r o m t h e
a p p e l l a n t ' s c o n t e n t i o n [ t h a t thi: t r e b l e t a x which t h e tW?W
'ought t o be charged under t h i s i L c t ' i n S e c t i o n 23 ( 3 ) o f
the Inconc Tzx Act 1952 clcant t h e whole t z x chargcable f o r
t h e r d l e v a n t y e m m d . n o t t r e b l e t h e t a x on t h e anount
understated] but w c can only take t h c i n t e n t i o n o f
Parliament from the words t h z t they have used i n t h c int. I , ( 3 6 )

16. A somewhat s i m i l a r o b s c r v n t i o n t o t h r t o f L o r d Reid i n the

Hinchg c a s e was made by Lord P a r k e r . C. J. i n Wright Ford
.) (37) This case r a i s e d the question
whcther 8n occupicr c o u l d be l i a b l e by reason of t h e combined
and S c c t i o n 155 (I)o f the F a c t o r i e s
e f f e c t of S e c t i o n 14 (I)
I",ct I 9 6 1 for a coy' 3avention of t h e Act i n r e s p e c t o f which an
employee c o u l d b e l i a b l e by thc- cornbincd e f f e c t of S e c t i o n 143

and S e c t i o n 155 (2)) o r whether.by v i r t u e o f S e c t i o n 155 ( 2 )

(I)
he had a defence u n l e s s t h c p r o s e c u t i o n could show t h a t t h e
occupier had f a i l e d t o take a l l reasonable s t e p s t o prevent t h e
c o n t r a v e n t i o n by the employes. I n h o l d i n g t h a t t h e occupicr
was n o t l i a b l e L o r d P a r k e r said:
"It nay be, t o put i t l o o s e l y , t h a t P a r l i a m e n t ' s i n t e n t i o n
was as . IC r , YbT e b s t e r h a s i n t e r p r e t e d the
Section i n h i s a r g w c n t But what t h i s c o u r t i s concerned
with i s t h e i n t e n t i o n or' PsA:>lianent as evinced by t h e w o r d s
used. I n ny judgnen'c, whatevcr t h e i r motive was, they
have f a i l e d t o u s e words td e x p r e s s an i n e t i o n 'jvhich
would l e a d t o t h i s appcal b e i n g allowed. J 3 8 ,

To understand t h c problem of i n t c r p r e t a t i o n r a i s e d by Wright y.

The Ford Motor C o m p a n m.m i t e d i t i s n e c e s s z r y t o go back t o
--_Si.

--
(35) [ I 9 6 0 1 L.C. 748.
(36)' A t p. 767.
( 3 7 ) f1967J 1 .Q.;3.230.
(38) A t P.. 237.

-I6-

. .. . ..

..
 6 '

b ' S e c t i o n I 3 0 ( 2 ) of t h e F a c t o r i e s i,ct 1937, which provided:

" I n t h e event of 2. c c n t r a v m t i o n by an employed p e r s o n of
t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f P a r t X o f t h i s L c t [ o f which S e c t i o n I I 9
(I) provided t h a t no person employed i n a f a c t o r y should
w i l f i l l y i n t e r f e r e w i t h or misuse o r f c i l t o use m y means
or a p p l i a n c e provided i n pursuance of t h i s ~ t b e,i n g for
t h e h e a l t h , s a f e t y 02 ivelfz.re o f t h e o t h e r employees:
t h a t person shrill- be g u i l t y o r an o f f e n c c and t h e o c c u p i e r
o . . ..
or owner, a s t h e c ~ ~ may s e b e , s h c l l n o t b e g u i l t y of an
>
o f f enc c n re ~25% .-cf ' h at-.-_c on~r~~erix'&o~ unle s s i t i s
$
provcd 'ihz-t he fai1c.C t r t c k c - all r e a s o n a b l e s t e p s to
prevent t h e contravention,"
The paeceding S e c t i o n 130 ( I ) of 'che sane Act provided t h a t :
" I n t h e e v c n t of any c o n t r a v e n t i o n i n or i n c o n m x t i o n with
or i n i x l z t i o n to a f a c t o r y of t h e p r o v i s i o n s 0 3 t h i s &=c-b,
or of any r c g u l a t i o n or o r d L y nade thereunder, t h z o c c u p i e r
o f t h e f n c t o r y s h a l l , s u b j c c t a s h o r c i n z . f t w i n 'ihis
~ L c Iprovided
; be g u i l t y o f an o f f w e e , "
I n 1947 i n & r r v . The DGca Granophon-e Coma3ng(39)Lord Goddard
C. J. g i v i n g the judgment of c? D i v i s i o n a l Court had h e l d t h a t
t h e o c c u p i e r s of a f c c t o r y w i t h i n thd neaning o f t h e F a c t o r i e s
Act 1937, a s such bound t o observe t h e Woodworking Machine
S p e c i a l R e g u l a t i o n s 1922-1545. m r e by rez.son of S e c t i o n 130 ( 2 )
n o t g u i l t y o f an o f f e n c e undcr S e c t i o n 130 (I)D f the Factories
LLct 1937, where t h e c o n t r a v e n t i o n o f t h e r e g u l a t i o n s v m s t h a t
o f a worknan, r h o s e duty i t vms to u s c anCLn a i n t c i n t h e machine
i n p r o p r riljusti,;LnL, u n l e s s i t were 2roved by t h 2 p r o s e c u t i o n
t h a t t h e occui3iers fsilec?. to take a l l r e a s o n a b l e s t q s tc
p r e v m t the con t r z v c n t i on H o we v(1:r , S c c 'i i on 10 of G
' he

F a c t o r i e s i L c t 1948, -thc emphasized p h r s s e ,

-
,o
-c
n i n t h e above-cited S e c t i o n 130 ( 2 ) of t h e
Factories i A c t 19379 was a l t c r c d so tlw.'c it i?ead, as f c r a s h e r e
relevant: -
"by reason only o f t h e c o n t r a v e n t i o n of t h e m i d p r o v i s i o n s
of P a r t X of t h i s Act ir
*.....
Lnd a t t h e end o f S e c t i o n 130 ( 2 ) were ~.d&:edt h e words:-
"But t h i s S e c t i o n s h e l l n o t bc t a k e n a s a f f e c t i n g any
l i a b i l i t y of t h e o c c u p i e r i n r e s p e c t of t h e same
n a t t e r s by v i r t u e o f some p r o v i s i o n o t h e r t h a n t h e
provisions ......
a?oresaidFr
S e c t i o n I30 ( 2 ) of t h e 1937 L e t , as amended by %hc 1948 A c t , w a s

-1 7-
 U %

re-enacted a s S e c t i o n 155 ( 2 ) o f t h e F a c t o r i e s Act 1961 .; t h e

l a t t e r Act a l s o re-enacted S e c t i o n 119 ( 1 ) o f t h e 1937 Act a s
S e c t i o n 143 (I) , which remained w i t h i n P a r t X of t h e 1961 Act.
Lord P a r k e r C. J, i n t h e Kkrightj c a s e , which concerned t h e 1961
- A c t , conceded t h a t t h e "undoubted" i n f e r e n c e vias t h a t t h e
F a c t o r i e s Act 1937, :,;as amended i n 1948 was a r e s u l t o f t h e C a r r
c a s e g and i t follows t h a t t h i s i n f e r e n c e was e q u a l l y r e l e v a n t i n
any c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e r e - e n a c t i n g 1961 Act. N e v e r t h e l e s s , t h e
Court i n t h e nrrffhd case r e j e c t e d t h e view t h a t the only defence
open t o t h e o c c u p i e r , where S e c t i o n 1 1 4 (I)( n o t b e i n g a
p r o v i s i o n o f P a r t X of t h e Act) had been contravened, was under
S e c t i o n 161 v h i c h required- t h e occupier t o b r i n g b e f o r e t h e
Court t h e a c t u a l o f f e n d e r and t o prove t h e l a t t e r a n d ' n o t ' t h e
o f f e n d e r was t o blame f o r t h e c o n t r a v e n t i o n . I t i n e f f e c t
recognized t h a t t h e r e might have been a f a i l u r e o f communication
between Parliament and t h e c o u r t s and t h e c a s e t h e r e f o r e a g a i n
i l l u s t r a t e s a c o n f l i c t between t h e apparent s o c i a l o b j e c t i v e s of
t h e l e g i s l a t u r e and t h e e s t a b l i s h e d a t t i t u d e s of t h e c o u r t s ( i n
Kright a d i s i n c l i n a t i o n t o a c c e p t a ~ l n o v e l fconcept
s of vicarious
c r i m i n a l l i a b i l i t y i n r e s p e c t of an offence f o r which on t h e f a c e
a t a l l e v e n t s of one p r o v i s i o n t h e employee a l o n e i s made l i a b l e )
and r a i s e s t h e q u e s t i o n whether i n such c a s e s some f u r t h e r measure
of i n t e r p r e t a t i v e a s s i s t a n c e , which may h e l p t o r e s o l v e t h e c o n f l i c t ,
should be available t o the c o u r t s .
P r e l i m i n a r y C-o-nclusip_n_s__a_n_d_Lines -0-f -E-nqui-ry

17 0
The c o n c l u s i o n s which we would t e n t a t i v e l y draw from a
p r e l i m i n a r y survey of t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of s t a t u t e s under t h e
B r i t i s h system a r e a s follows:-
( a ) There i s evidence of o c c a s i o n a l f a i l u r e o f communica-
t i o n between Parliament ( o r o t h e r a u t h o r i t i e s
e x e r c i s i n g l e g i s l a t i v e powers under P a r l i a m e n t ) and
'the c o u r t s ; t h i s f a i l u r e , *ifhen i t o c c u r s , may be
s e r i o u s i n i t s d i r e c t consequences bat i t i s l i k e l y
also t o have wider harmful r e p e r c u s s i o n s on t h e
l e g a l system a s a whole.
(b) I t i s u n r e a l i s t i c t o suggest t h e only moral t o be
drawn from t h e s e d i f f i c u l t i e s i s t h a t s t a t u t e s
should be b e t t e r d r a f t e d . (40) The i n h e r e n t
-1__I_I___.---------- --- - _____1_c___ - ---
(40) I t might be s u g g e s t e d , f o r example, t h e " r e p a i r i n g q ' which
caused t h e d i f f i c u l t y i n Ber-riman' s . C a s 2 ( s e e n. (31 ) above)
would have been b e t t e r expre.ssed b y a more g e n e r a l r e f e r e n c e
t o ' ' c a r r y i n g o u t any duty on o r n e a r t h e permanent way."

8-
-I
 l i m i t z t i o n s of language, t h e d i f f i c u l t y o f
f o r e s e e i n g and p r o v i d i n g for a11 c o n t i n g e n c i u s and
t h e i m p c r f c c t i o n s which must r e s u l t i n somc clegrcc
from t h e p r e s s u r e s un&r which modern l e g i s l a t i o n
has so often t G b e produced make t h e achievement of
uniformly g e r f e c t s t a t u t e s i n p o s s i b l e . The t e s t of'
a sound i n t c r p r e t 2 . t i v e y r o c e s s i s i t s a b i l i t y t o

t a k e account o f , ancl cope w i t h , t h e s e f a c t o r s .

Even where - a s i n the great majority o f cases - the
i n t e n t i o n o f t h e l e g i s l a t o r i s , as far a s can be
a s c e r t c i n e d , c o r r e c t l y i n t o r p r e t e d by t h e c o u r t s ,
t h e p r o c e s s may well be ono of sone d i f f i c u l t y t o

t h e judges, i n v o l v i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n of a complex
and i m p e r f e c t l y co-ordinated body of law, and a
c o n s i d e r a b l c burden t o l i t i g a n t s .
h s far as t h e p r m l i c c l p o s s i b i l i t i e s of improvement

i n t h i s f i e l d a r e conccrned, t h e t h r e e most
promising l i n e s of e n q u i r y are:

(0 whcthcr t h e combined e f f e c t of t h e r u l e s of
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and. of th;: presumptions of
i n t e n t developed by t h c c o u r t s h a s , i n
s p i t e of some important c o n t r a r y develop-
ments i n r e c e n t years!, been t o emphasize
t o an undue e x t e n t t h e l i t e r a l i n t c r p r e t a -
t i o n o f l e g i s l a t i v e i n s t r u m e n t s and
correspondingly t o lessen t h e importance
a'ctached t o t h e i r purpose,
(ii) whether 'che c o u r t s have made t h e i r t a s k
u n n e c e s s a r i l y d i ffi c u l t by self-imposed
l i m i t a t i o n s on t h e m a t e r i a l which t h e y may
consult i n i n t e r p r e t i n g 8 legislative
instrument and
( i i i ) whether, a p a r t from t h e p r o p r i e t y o f any

exclusionary r u l e s , the a v a i l a b l e material

-1 g-
 L, 4' '

which m i g h t t h r o w l i g h t on an otherwise
d i f f i c u l t p i e c e of l e g i s l a t i o n i s a t
p r e s e n t inadequate e

18. I n pursuing t h e s e l i n e s o f enquiry we have a t t a c h e d g r e a t

importance t o comparative s t u d i e s , f o r t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s which
our c o u r t s have f a c e d i n d e a l i n g with t h e immense scope and
complexity of modern l e g i s l a t i o n have been experienced i n some
degree i n every advanced community. I t i s of course t r u e t h a t
i n t h i s f i e l d any comparison w i t h another l e g a l system must
t & e due account o f a v a r i e t y o f e x t r a n e o u s f x t o r s which may
u n d e r l i e d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e t h e o r y ancl F r a c t i c z o f s t a t u t o r y
interpretation. It must n o t be assumed, f o r example, t h a t t h e
freedom t o adopt a v e r y broad and l i b e r a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f
s t a t u t e s which i s a s s i g n e d t o , o r t a k e n by t h e c o u r t s i n one
country would be a c c e p t a b l e t o t h e l e g i s l a t i v e body i n another.
I t must a l s o be borne i n mind, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n any comparisons
made betwecn t h e a t t i t u d e o f B r i t i s h Courts towcrds t h e

i n t e r p r c t ? . t i o n of s t a t u t e s an? t h a t of c o u r t s i n C i v i l Law
systems, t h a t t h e l a t t e r have n o t , g e n e r a l l y spe&ing, been
faced with t h e problem o f r e c o n c i l i n g s t a t u t e l a w with an
e x t e n s i v e body of common law. They conceive t h e i r role, a t all
e v e n t s a s f a r a s t h e development o f non-penal law i s conccrned,
r a t h e r as one of f i t t i n g t h e s t a t u t e i n t o t h e generz.1 l e g i s l a t i v e
scheme, o r where t h e d e t a i l s o f t h a t scheme a r e l a c k i n g , o f
a s k i n g themselves i n what way t h e l e g i s l a t o r s would have f i l l e d
t h e gap. S i m i l a r l y t h e c o u r t s i n one country m y i n t h e

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of s t a t u t e s bc a b l e t o make use o f committee

r e p o r t s o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i n t h c course o f t h e p a s s i n g o f t h e
l e g i s l a t i o n i n q u e s t i o n , because they a r e prepared i n a way
which g e n c r a l l y g i v e s a r e l i a b l e impression o f i t s background,
g e n e r a l purpose and s p e c i f i c i n t e n t i o n s ; i n another country, on
t h e o t h e r hand, committee r e p o r t s of t h e l e g i s l a t u r e may be much
l e s s i n f o r m a t i v e from t h e p o i n t o r view o f the c o u r t s concerned

-20-
b ' U

with t h e l e g i s l z t i o n which evenLually emerges f r o m t h e i r

delibemtions.

19. While r e c o g n i z i n g t h e c a u t i o n with which any c o n c l u s i o n s

r e g z r d i n g t h o i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of s t a t u t e s drawn from comparative
s t u d i e s should b e a p p l i c d t o t h e E n g l i s h and S o o t t i & legal
systems,we t h i n k t h a t much can b e l e c r n c d from experiiince and
t h e o r e t i c a . 1 a n a l y s i s o f i t s problems i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s and
Commonwealth and t h e C i v i l Law c o u n t r i e s . In their literature
t h e t o p i c i s commonly c o n s i d e r e d from four d i f f e r e n t a s p e c t s : -
(a) the t e x t u a l aspect - i.e., t h e grammatical and l i t e r a l s t u d y
o f t h e m a t e r i a l t o b e construed; (b) the contextual aspect -
i.e., t h e l o g i c a l and s y s t e m a t i c examinztion o f t h e c o n t e x t ,
w i t h p a r t i c u l a r r e f e r e n c e t o t h e i n t e n t i o n of t h e communication

i n rcgard t o t h e width of the contex'c 2.nG t h e r e a s o n a b l e

expect2.tions o f t h e p e r s o n s t o whom i t i s d i r e c t e d i n r e s p c c t o f
th2.t c o n t e x t ; (c) the t e l e o l o g i c a l aspect - i.e., interpretation
a i r e c t e d t o t h e purpose o f l e g i s l a t i o n ; and ( d ) t h e h i s t o r i c a l
aspect - i.e., s t u d y of t h c p r o c e s s by which t h c enactment
became law, i n c l u d i n g i t s o r i g i n i n a committee r e p o r t o r o t h e r
s o u r c e , i t s f o r m u l a t i o n as a l c g i s l e t i v c p r o p o s a l and i t s
passage Lhrough t h e l e g i s l a t u r s . I n contrast thcre i s a

remarkable d e a r t h i n our legal literature of w r i t i n g on t h e

g e n e r a l t h e o r y o f s t a t u t o r y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , a n G , t ~t h e l i m i t e d

e x t e n t t h a t our c o u r t s h2.w d e s l t w i t h t h e m a t t c r s y s t e m a t i c a l l y ,
i t would scem t h e t a t t e n t i o n h a s been mainly d i r e c t e d -Lo t h e
f i r s t and, t o a r a t h e r l e s s e r e x t e n t , t o t h e second o f t h e s e
f o u r a s p e c t s , and t h a t a t all e v e n t s u n t i l r e c e n t l y t h e l a t t e r
two have been n e g l e c t e d o r given insufficient a t t e n t i o n .
20. I n the United S t a t e s the t o p i c h a s been a v i t a l one, b o t h
beczuse o f t h e range and importance of t h e q u e s t i o n s which have
t u r n e d upon t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n i t s e l f and
because o f t h e immense importance of t h e s o c i a l and economic
l e g i s l a t i o n which ha6 bcen e n a c t e d i n a f a s t developing and
complex s o c i e t y . I n t h e C i v i l Law c o u n t r i e s , where t h e law h a s

-21 -
 .-
" i/been l a r g e l y c o d i f i e d , b o t h t h e c o u r t s and t h e body of j u r i s t s ,
whose w r i t i n g s form an important source o f a u t h o r i t y , have t e s t e d
and developed t h e o r i e s of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ; they seek t o c l a r i f y
t h e f u n c t i o n of t h e j u d i c i a r y i n applying t h e codes and i n extend-
i n g o r r e s t r i c t i n g the scope of t h e i r language; they d i s c u s s t h e
bounds o f a judge's a u t h o r i t y t o c o r r e c t manifest e r r o r s , and
g e n e r a l l y t r y t o r e c o n c i l e t h e r o l e s of t h e j u d i c i a r y and t h e
l e g i s l a t u r e . The c o n s t i t u t i o n a l stimulus and a somewhat g r e a t e r
degree of c o d i f i c a t i o n t h a n a t p r e s e n t e x i s t s i n England, have a l s o
provoked i n t e r e s t i n t h e problems of s t a t u t o r y i n e e r p r e t a t i o n i n
some Commonwealth c o u n t r i e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y Canada , A u s t r a l i a and
New Zealand. If , a s we e n v i s a g e , our own law becoines i n c r e a s i n g l y
c o d i f i e d , our c o u r t s w i l l have t o give g r e a t e r a t t e n t i o n t o many
of t h e problems which t h e c o u r t s of o t h e r c o u n t r i e s have had t o
f a c e , and i t may w e l l be t h a t d i f f e r e n t techniques of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n
w i l l have t o be developed,
21. We have t h e r e f o r e thought i t u s e f u l t o add i n t h e appendices
some of t h e comparative m a t e r i a l and b i b l i o g r a p h i c a l r e f e r e n c e s
t o some o f t h e published s t u d i e s , which we have considered. In t h i s
connection we have c o n s u l t e d and been g r e a t l y a s s i s t e d by judges,
academic 2nd p r a c t i s i n g lawyers and government draf'tsmen i n a
number o f c o u n t r i e s .

IV
____I__--- THE PRIl!TCIJL'Eg OF STATUTORY INTZWRETATIOM
_r--A -_
-Y >

( i ) The Mischief Rule t h e -GoldeG_lPule and _the_ >*i-t-E.sE&--Rulq

22. - __
The l o c u s c l a s s i c--u s o f t h e mischief r u l e i s t h e following
(41)
statement by Barons of t h e Court o f Exchequer i n €legdonss Case:-
the/
".And it was r e s o l v e d by them tha.t f o r t h e s u r e and t r u e
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of all s t a t u t e s i n g e n e r a l ( b e they penal
o r b e n e f i c i a l , r e s t r i c t i v e or e n l a r g i n g o f t h e common law,)
four t h i n g s a r e t o be d i s c e r n e d and considered:-
1st. Yhat was t h e common law before t h e making of t h e Act,
2nd. :'/hat was t h e mischief and d e f e c t f o r which t h e
coillmon law d i d not provide.
3rd. What remedy t h e Parliament h a t h r e s o l v e d and appointed
t o c u r e t h e d i s e a s e of t h e commonwealth.

-22-
 Wd;
"And, 4th.The t r u e reason of t h e remedy; and t h e n t h e o f f i c e
of a l l t h e Judges i s always t o make such c o n s t r u c t i o n
a s s h a l l suppress t h e m i s c h i e f , aild advance the
remedy, and t o suppress s u b t l e i n v e n t i o n s and
evasions for continuance of the m i s c h i e f , and & p
p i v a t o cornmodo? and to add f o r c e and l i f e t o the
-...A__-_.=---,

cure and remedy, according t o t h e t r u e i n t e n t o f the

makers o f t h e Act , p r o boQo-lico," -_
T h i s approach was a l r e a d y t o be found i n a note t o w o n V ,
(42)
-
Stu9:-
"As a n u t c o n s i s t s of a s h e l l and a k e r n e l s o every s t a t u t e
c o n s i s t s of t h e l e t t e r and- the s e n s e , and a s t h e k e r n e l i s
t h e f r u i t of t h e n u t , s o t h e sense i s the f r u i t o f t h e s t a t u t e . ' '
And Coke himself l a t e r r e f e r r e d t o t h e same approach i n h i s
(43)
Institutes: -
"Equity i s a c o n s t r u c t i o n made by t h e judges, t h a t c a s e s
out o f t h e l e t t e r of a s t a t u t e , y e t b e i n g within the same
mischief , or cause o f t h e making o f t h e same, s h a l l be
w i t h i n t h e same remedy t h a t t h e st.atute p r o v i d e t h ; and
t h e reason hereof i s , for t h a t t h e lammakers could n o t
p o s s i b l y s e t down 8-11c a s e s i n express terms,"
<

23 e A p a r a l l e l approach t o s t a t u t e s i s t o be found i n S c o t t i s h
(4Ld
decisions Thus i n Ca_mpb-gl-l_-x.-Gr-i-e-csLn t h e Lord J u s t i c e
C l e r k i n d e a l i n g with an o l d Act o f 1669 r e f e r r e d t o ? ' t h e r e a l
o b j e c t of t h e enactment'' a s one of t h e r u l e s t o be applied.
(45)
And i n -rates of H i l l h e a d
Com_miss-io_n_er_s
o-f_Gl_as~o~~-v-,_Police
i t was s a i d t h a t ''it i s a s e t t l e d p r i n c i p l e t h a t t h e c o u r t should
s o c o n s t r u e an Act of Parliament a s t o apply t h e s t a t u t o r y remedy t o
t h e e v i l o r mischief which i t i s the i n t e n t i o n of the s t a t u t e t o

24 0
I n t h e n-ineteenth century , although I3ejdo~l-'-s Case continued
to be c i t e d , t h e E n g l i s h c o u r t s began t o d e s c r i b e t h e i r powers i n
i n c r e a s i n g l y guarded terms. Thus i n 4827 L o r d Tenterden C . J . in
(46)
Br_mdlin_gpo- I3 a r r i n q t-on
- -1 could not -
'Iforbear observing t h a t . D . t h e r e i s always danger i n
o .

g i v i n g e f f e c t t o what i s c a l l e d t h e e q u i t y of t h e s t a t u t e ,
and t h a t i t i s much b e t t e r and s a f e r t o r e l y on and abide
by t h e p l a i n words, although t h e l e g i s l a t u r e might possibly
have provided f o r OtheiO c a s e s had t h e i r a t t e n t i o n been
d i r e c t e d t o them.''
(42) (1574) 2 Plowden 463.
(43) I Inst. 24 ( b )
(44) (1848) I 0 D. 361.
(45) (1885) I 2 R. 864.
(46) 6 B. eC C, 467 a t p. 475.
.-23-
 25, The judges were, hoiwever, prepared t o some e x t e n t t o
c o n s i d e r Coke's s t c a s e s o u t o f t h e l e t t e r o f a s t a t u t e " under t h s
s o - c a l l e d golden r u l e . T h i s r u l e was a t t r i b u t e d t o L o r d
?Jensleydale by Lord Blackburn i n p i v e r 'Ye-ar Ccnrcissioners v , L

Adamson i n which he s a i d : -
"1 b e l i e v e t h a t i t i s n o t d i s p u t e d t h a t what L o r d Wensleydale
used t o c a l l t h e golden r u l e i s r i g h t , v i z . , t h a t r.Je a r e t o
t a k e t h e whole s t a t v . t e t o g e t h e r and c o n s t r u e i t a l l
t o g e t h e r , g i v i n g t h e words t h e i r o r d i n a r y s i g n i f i c a t i o n ,
unless when s o a p p l i e d t h e y produce an i n c o n s i s t e n c y , o r an
a b s u r d i t y o r inconvenience s o g r e a t a s t o convince t h e
Court t h a t t h e i n t e n t i o n could n o t have been t o u s e them i n
t h e i r o r d i n a r y s i g n i f i c a t i o n , and t o j u s t i f y t h e Court i n
p u t t i n g on them some o t h e r s i g n i f i c a t i o n , which, though
less p r o p e r , i s one which t h e Court t h i n k s t h e words w i l l
b e a r (47)
a

Although L o r d Blackburn speaks of r e s u l t i n g " a b s u r d i t y or

a s a p o s s i b i l i t y separate from "inconsistency"
which s u g g e s t s t h a t a c o u r t might r e f u s e t o adopt t h e p l a i n
meaning o f words i f i t thought t h a t t h e p l a i n meaning was absurd
o r i n c o n v e n i e n t , n e v e r t h e l e s s i t i s c l e a r from t h e concluding
words of h i s statement above t h a t he only e n v i s a g e s t h e
o p e r a t i o n o f t h e golden r u l e where t h e words i n q u e s t i o n have an
o r d i n a r y s i g n i f i c a t i o n and a " l e s s proper" b u t p e r m i s s i b l e one.
A comparable a t t i t u d e was a p p a r e n t l y taken i n d e p e n d e n t l y by t h e
C o u r t o f S e s s i o n i n S c o t l a n d (48)
26. A somewhat b o l d e r s t a t e m e n t i s t h a t o f liackinnon L , J . in
Sutherland P w i - q g C v. Caxton Publ-&ghing-_C_I?, L t d . : (49)
tfWhen t h e purpose o f an enactment i s c l e a r , i t i s o f t e n
l e g i t i m a t e , because i t i s n e c e s s a r y , t o p u t a s t r a i n e d
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n upon some words which have been
i n a d v e r t e n t l y u s e d , and of which t h e p l a i n meaning would
d e f e a t t h e obvious i n t e n t i o n of t h e L e g i s l a t u r e . I t may
even be n e c e s s a r y , and t h e r e f o r e l e g i t i m a t e , t o s u b s t i t u t e
f o r an i n e p t word o r words t h a t which such i n t e n t i o n
r e q u i r e s , The most s t r i k i n g example o f t h i s I t h i n k i s
one passage i n t h e C a r r i a g e o f Goods by Sea A c t , 1924, where
t o p r e v e n t a r e s u l t so n o n s e n s i c a l t h a t the L e g i s l a t u r e
cannot have intended it, it has been held (50) necessary and
l e g i t i m a t e t o s u b s t i t u t e t h e word 'and' f o r t h e word 'or'
The v i o l e n c e o f t h i s o p e r a t i o n has I t h i n k been minimised
by s a y i n g t h a t i n t h i s p l a c e t h e word ' o r ' must be taken t o
mean ' a n d ' . T h i s i s a cowardly i n t e n t i o n i n t r u t h where
one word i s s u b s t i t u t e d f o r a n o t h e r . F o r ' o r ' can n e v e r
mean ' and' ."( 51 )

(47) (1877) 2 APP. Cas. 743 a t PP. 764-5.

(48)
e ?,T;i.T,,,> 25 L-L i2a 31
-
See Caledonian Railway Co. v , N o r t h i L i s h R a i l w a y Z (188:)

I?$![
~

LA9381 Ch. 174.

Apparently a r e f e r e n c e t o Brown & C o . v. H a r r i s o n (1927)
96 L,J. K.B. 1025.
(51) A t p. 201.

-24-
 7 ,

-
27 There was, however, a s t r o n g curre1q-L o f j u d i c i a l opinior.
i n favour 02' an approach ra-bher :r.ic:,er than t6a-C:Q$ t'n.e'....coJ-den
r u l c , which i s commonly given t h e l a b e l o f t h e l i t e r a l - r u l e .
(52)
L o r d Brhmiveil i n H i 1 3 v . F a s t and 'vi]
r e j e c t i n g t h e n o i i o n ':hat the C G U P ~can l e g i t i m a t e l y be
concerned with -the q u i s t i o n ~ d i the??
c a p a r $ i c u l a r constructioi?

leads t o absurdit,y; said:; I-..

"1 s h o u l d l i k e t o have a goocl clefinl-l;ion of .what i s such a:..~

abcurdi'cy t.hc?'c you FLye t o aFkrr;ga::d t h e p l a i n woi-6s of an
Act of Pa?]-iancnt, I t i s $ 0 b e rmmbcrel! .that what see111:;
absurd t o one m m does not sccm absurd Lo ano'Gher I . . O . O C

t h i n k i t i s j.nfj.nite1.g b e t t e r , although an a b s u r d i t y , o r an
in; . . ,:.c:
, ~ c e , o:c o t h e r o b j c c t i o n a b l e r e s u l t may be evolved a s
.,;

a consequence of your c o n s t r u c l i o n , t o adhere to t h e words

o f an L e t o f Parliament and l e a v e t h e 1egislP.turc t o s e t i t
r i g h t than t o a l t e r those viiorcls accord.ing t o o n e ' s n o t i o n
o f an absurdity.'' (33)

f o r t h r i g h t : --
"If t h e VKJP~S o f an A t ' c are clear you must f o l l o w them,
eve3 tnough they l e a d t o a manifest a b s u r d i t y , The C O L P C
h a s nothing t o do with the q u e s t i o 2 whether t h e I,egi.slniu?e
h a s committed an absurdity." (55)

The following wcll-knovm passage f r o m t h e spcech of L o r d

JLtkG-nzcEi n V x h e r 8: Son3 Ltd,. _v'.o. ,Ttoi:clon
. - . , ._.S o c i. c---t y..--o f
-_*
(5q-i s A ~ >

C omp o s i t o r s
_L___ly_-
-fornn?-iy cojlri st,en-d, wi ti? a r e s t r i c t o d f o r m 02
t h e golc?cn r u l e , as i %p r c s u g p o s ~ slangzage which i s c o m p l c t e l ; ~
unambiguous, I n s p i r i t , however, 2 . t c h a l l e n g e s t h e r a t i o n a l e
of any r u l e permit'i,:ing t h e c o u r t s t o c c r r e c t an a b s u r d i t y ,
L o r d i A t k i n s o 2 said: .'.
!'If t h e langxage of a s t a t u t e bc p l a i n , a d n i t t i n g o f only.
One me,?.nLng, t h e L e g i s l a t u r e must b c taken 'LO have meant.
and intei?.dcd what i t h a s p l a i n l y excpv.essec1,.arid whatever i-;:
'has 5 . n c l e a r tcr-ms e m c . t e d ! xyJst be en2orced 'ihough i t should-
lezcl t o absur?; o r rnirch.i.evou.s r e s u : ! t s . If t h e language o f
thi-s s,L?b--sectioiibe n o t c o n t r o l l e d by some of t h c o t h c r
p r o v i s i o n s o r t h e statvLte, i'L; must, s i n c e ' i t s lar_&age i s
\ p l e i n ani! unambigxous, be enforce$L.,and your lorc'iships'
. . Eiouse s i t t i n g ju6icj.all.g i s i 1 O t concern& viiith t h e q u e s t i o n
whether t h e po!,j.cy i t exbodies Is wisc o r unwise, o r ' . '

whether j. t l e a d s 5,'. consequucnccs just or uilJiist, b e n e f i c i a l

o r mischievous,'' (57)
-- . -- - --- -.-. -- _I.

( 5 2 ) (1884) s;' Xpp. Cas. .kJ-1.8~ (53) lit p. 2 9 0 .

(53) At p., 451!--.5* (56) [I9131 A . C . lOTO . .

(57) i;t pp. 121-2.

.‘U
( ii ) g ~ g ~ n p ~ ~ n ~ - o _of
f C~o nC
s t r u~c t i~o n o n s
.-
r-
CA . tJhs.-i-,z ~ c irn t u r p r c b a t i o n might be thought t o emerge from t h e
applic:7.tion of i h e r u ? - t s L i scusscC: s.bovc, t h e f i n d d e c i s i o n o f

a court mzjr i i I ,I;t b ? geeat1 y iiir“1ucnced By p r e s i m p t i o n s o f

intent c?;i,!, GU socc c :ent, by canoas of c o n s t r u c t i o n ,

 U'+
respect, i;oT-er t h e years", it h a s been sziSl,itthe c o u r t s - have
laboured t o d i s c e r n and a r t i c u l a t e a g r e a t number of p r i n c i p l e s
of s o c i a l r c l a t i o n s . I n an almost l i t e r a l sense t h e s c represent
(51 1
a d i s t i l l z t i o n 02 t h e expcricnce and wisdom o f society."
k court w i l l , f o r i n s t m c c , c u t down thi; g e n e r a l i t y o f c e r t a i n
enactments b o t h i n o r d e r -to a d j u s t t h m t o this e x i s t i n g law and
t o give e f f c c t t o p r e v a i l i n g v a l u e s - c . b * i n r d s t r i c t i n g t h e
a p p a r e n t l y u n f e t t e r e d g e n e r a l i t y cf t h o % p r o v i s i o n s i n planning
l e g i s l a t i o n which e n t i t l e a M i n i s t e r t o ~ ~ n p o supon
c a planning
'permission "such c o n d i t i o n s a s hc t h i n k s f i t " . ( G 2 ) Particular
presumptions of i n t c n t i o n w i l l however be modified o r evcn
abandoncc? w i t h t h e passage of timG, and w i t h t h e m o d i f i c c t i o n o f
t h c s o c i a l v a l u c s which t h e y embody.
31 L'L judge howcvcr i s n o t e f f e c t i v e l y bound by t h e presumptions
of i n t e n t f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g recsons: -
There i s no e s t a b l i s h e d orcler of p x c e d e n c e i n t h e
c a s e of c o n f l i c t between d i f f e r e n t prcsumptions.
The i n d i v i d u r l presumptions a r e o f t c n o f d o u b t f u l
s t a t u s , b e i n g t h e sub j e c t of seemingly c o n t r a d i c t o r y
j u d i c i c l pronouncements.
fL c o u r t can g i v e a d e c i s i o n on t h e meaning of a
st2.tutc which c o n f l i c t s with a p a r t i c u l m
presumption without r e f e r r i n g t o presumptions o f
intent a t all. The p o s s i b i l i t y f o r t h c c o u r t t o

decide i n t h c f i r s t p l a c e t h a t %hc.mesning i s c l e r r
e n c b l c s i t t o exclude Z l t o g c t h e r any o p e r a t i o n of a
presumption e

There i s no a c c q t d t e s t f o r r e s o l v i n g a c o n f l i c t
b e t w c n a presumption o f i n t e n t - e.g. t h c t penal
s t a t u t e s should be construed r e s t r i c t i v e l y - and
g i v i n g e f f e c t t o t h e purpose of a s l a t u t e ( t h e
"mischief" of pcNdon's Case) - e.g. t h e purposc of
f a c t o r y l e g i s l a t i o n t o secure s a f e working conditions.

-27-
.'U
32 I t h2.s boen suggested (63)th,t tho difficulties and
uncertc2inties which z L r i s c : i n regmcl t o prcsumptions oi' i n t e n t
might be tlvoidcd by t h e s t a t u t o r y c l z s s i f i c z t i o n o f l e g i s l a t i o n
v i t h a p p r o p r i a t c prcsumptions. We doubt howevcr t h e
p r m t i c a b i l i t y of a c l a s s i f i c z - t i o n o f t h i s k i n c , a s wc consic'cr
t h s t any comyrchcnsivc s t a t u t o r y d i r e c t i v e s woulc? c i t h L r havc t o

b c s o g e n c r z l i z e d 2 s t o afford l i t - b l e guic'mcc t o t h e c o u r t s o r
s o C?t'tr.ilLd th2.t they would lead to i n t o l e r a b l e complcxity and
r i g i d i t y of t h c law.
33 I n r e j e c t i n g t h i s approach w e r e c o g n i z c t h a t a c a w may b e
made for d c a l i n g s p e c i f i c a l l y w i t h p a r t i c u l m m a t t c r s by mcms o f
s t a t u t o r y prcsumptions. For cxamplc, i t h a s bcon suggestcd
t h a t s t a t u t o r y prosumptions should govcrn t h e quGstion whcthcr
s t a t u t o r y of'fcnccs require mens rCa an2 whether t h c brcclch rjf a
penzLl p r o v i s i o n g i v e s r i s c t o a c i v i l remedy. Examination of
t h e f i r s t o f t h c s e q u e s t i o n s would n e c e s s i t a t e a complex l c g a l
a n a l y s i s o f thc n n t u r c of t h b m t n t a l element i n crimc, t h e
second i n v o l v c s C i f f i c u l t lcgal problems conccrning t h c 2 o s s i b l c
b c n e f i c i c r i c s of thi: c i v i l remcdy, and b o t h r a i s e wide-rezching
i s s u c s of s o c i a l p o l i c y . They would r e q u i r e f u l l c r treatment
t h a n w o u l 2 b c a p p r o p r i a t e i n t h i s Working Paper.
(iii) gxtraneous i A i d L t o Constructioq

34 JGcndcrLQ
. En
rcV
stcr 9 (64)
ancl
e s p c c i a l l y t h e obscrvcLtionsof Lords SomLrvcll and Simoncls{ 63)

i n t h a t c a s e , have emphasized t h a t p r r t i c u l z r worc',s i n a s t a t u t e

must be i3ut i n t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e s t a t u t e a s a whole. It i s
true that there are 8 number of r e l a t i v e l y minor p o i n t s of
d i f f i c u l t y which a r i s c i n regercl t o what for t h i s purpose may be
regarded a s t h e c o n t e x t of t h e s t a t u t e ; it i s clear from the
E r n e s t o f Hanover case t h a t t h e preamblc i s inclu?-cc?, b u t t h e r e
i s some u n c e r t a i n t y rcgz.r&ing, for example, t h e s t a t u s o f
headings and s i d c n o t e s . We d e a l sCi3ati"atCly with thcsc. m a t t c r s

( 6 3 ) Professor JV. Friedman, L2.w and. S. o c i a l Change, pp. 252-265.

L__ = .___U

(64) E19571 436.

(65) pp. 460-1, 463, 473.
i A t S C C paragraph 9 abovc.

-28 -
 r .

U' >
i n paragraphs 41-45 belowr. We a r e here concerned w i t h t h e e x t e n t
t o which a c o u r t may i n i t s i n t e r p r e t a t i v e t a s k t a k e account of
certain material ( 6 6 ) outside the statute, i n particular reports of
Royal Commissions and s i m i l a r b o d i e s and p a r l i a m e n t a r y proceedings
connected w i t h t h e s t a t u t e i n q u e s t i o n .
35 0 I t i s , we t h i n k , h e l p f u l t o c o n s i d e r t h e extraneous m a t e r i a l
c

which a judge might; c o n s i d e r i n i n t e r p r e t i n g words i n a s t a t u t e 1

under t h r e e headings, I n t h e f i r s t p l a c e he might w i s h t o inform
himsePf about t h e g e n e r a l l e g a l and- f a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n i n t h e f i e l d
i n which tnt; s t a t u t e i s t o o p e r a t e . Secondly, he inight wish t o
know about t h e miscnief w i t h i n t h a t l e g a l or f a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n which
i t i s t h e purpose o f t h e statu-ct; t o remedy. T h i r d l y , he might look
t o extraneous i n f o r m a t i o n t o f i x t h e n a t u r e and scope o f t h e remedy
*.provided by the s t a t u t e ,
36 0 Provided t h a t t h e c o u r t thought t h a t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n was
r e l e v a n t and r e l i a b l e , t h e r e do not seem t o be any s p e c i f i c l i m i t -
a t i o n s on t h e infDrmation t o which t h e c o u r t might r e f e r under t h e
f i r s t heading. The e x t e n t t o w h i c h . m a t e r i a l may be r e f e r r e d t o
under t h e second and t h i r d headings i s more u n c e r t a i n .
---. The admission o f c e r t a i n m a t e r i a l under t h e second heading -
-?I.
i e e e 9t o a s c e r t a i n t h e mischief a t which t h e s t a t u t e aimed - h a s
been allowed by t h e c o u r t s , I n Eastman v, Com~~-r-o-lle_r_G_eneral-~f
-
-P a t e n t-(67)
r s L o r d Halsbury a d m i t t e d a r e p o r t of a Commission ''as a
source o f i n f o r m a t i o n a s t o what was t h e e v i l o r d e f e c t which t h e
Act of Parliament now under c o n s t r u c t i o n was i n t e n d e d t o remedy" ( 6 8 )

And i n g l l c i v. Iviundsaake
. F - ( 6 8 ) t h e J u d i c i a l Committee o f
i h e P r i v y C o w c i l h e l d t h a t ' ' j u d i c i a l n o t i c e ought t o be
taken of such m a t t e r s a s P a r l i a m e n t a r y C o m m i s s i o a s and of
such o t h e r , f a c , t s a s must be assumed t o have been w i t h i n t h e
contemplation of %he l e g i s l a t u r e when t h e Acts i n q u e s t i o n
were passed" (69) Although i t i s conceivable that
-
- _-___ - - .- _______- -- - 4-L_I

(56) Ye do n o t d e a l i n t h i s paper w i t h extraneous m a t e r i a l o f which

t h e a d m i s s i b l e s t a t u s i s undoubted - w i t h , f o r example, e a r l i e r
s t a t u t e s oil t h e same s u b j e c t - m a t t e r a s t h e s t a t u t e b e i n g i n t e r -
p r e t e d and case-law i n which t h e r e i s j u d i c i a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n
o f t h e word o r words i n q,uestioLi as used i n e a r l i e r l e g i s l a t i o n .
With r e g a r d , however, t o t h e weight t o be a t t a c h e d t o such
case-lavf, s e e i2, (137) below.
( 6 7 ) [ I 8 9 8 1 A - c . 571. ( 6 8 ) 119531 A e C o 514.
( 6 9 ) A t p. 528. . -

-29-

I .

. . . ' .>

, i .
,..
 t h e inference drawn f r o m a committee r e p o r t a s t o t h e mischief
which P a r l i a m e n t had i n mind i n r e g a r d t o a s t a t u t e might r e q u i r e
m o d i f i c a t i o n i n t h e l i g h t of s t a t e m e n t s subsequently made i n
P a r l i a z e n t , i t i s d o u b t f u l whether t h e c o u r t s ca.n r e f e r t o
p a r l i a m e n t a r y s t a t e m e n t s even t o a s c e r t a i n t h e mischief a t which
a B i l l under debate i s zirned. I t i s t r u e t h a t i n Sout,Eas=n
--
2 a i l m o L ~ T h e3 &QLFJT C ommi s s i oner s (71 ) Cockburn C , Ja% spoke
of m a t t e r s which c o u l d be " s a f e l y a s s e r t e d " n o t t o " e n t e r i n t o t h e
measure a s contemplated nor [ t o b e ] p r e s e n t i n t h e mind of t h e
l e g i s l a t u r e i n t h e A c t ; ' , ( 7 2 ) having r e g a r d t o a speech of t h e
Lord C h a n c e l l o r i n t h e Ilouse o f L o r d s and of t h e i n t r o d u c e r of t h e
B i l l i n t h e Commons. But h i s views were disapproved of by
L o r d Selborne on a p p e a l . (73) However Lord Westbury i n Re Jdeyi'
=
e ,(74) a f t e r r e f e r r i n g t o t h e r e p o r t of t h e coinmissioi t h a t
l e d t o t h e l e g i s l a t i o n and t o t h e speech of t h e member who i n t r o -
duced i t i n t h e Cominons, s a i d : -
"Now, I a d v e r t t o t h e s e m a t t e r s for t h e purpose of a b i d i n g
by t h a t r u l e of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n which was approved by
L o r d Coke, t h a t i n t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of a s t a t u t e i t i s
d e s i r a b l e f i r s t t o c o n s i d e r t h e s t a t e of t h e law e x i s t i n g
a t t h e time of i t s i q t r o d u c t i o n , and then t h e complaints o r
t h e e v i l s t h a t were e x i s t i n g or were supposed t o e x i s t , i n
t h a t s t a t e of t h c law. I do t h i s f o r t h e purpose only of
p u t t i n g t h e i n t e r p r e t e r of t h e law i n t h e p o s i t i o n i n which
t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i t s e l f was p l a c e d ; and t h i s i s done
p r o p e r l y f o r t h e purpose of g a i n i n g a s s i s t a n c e i n
i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e words o f t h e law, not t h a t one w i l l be
warranted i n g i v i n g t o t h o s e words any d i f f e r i n g meaning
from t h a t wnich i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e i r p l a i n and ' o r d i n a r y
s i g n i f i c a t i o n , b u t a t t h e same time i t may somewhat a s s i s t
i n i n t e r p r e t i n g t h o s e words and i n a s c e r t a i n i n g t h e o b j e c t
t o which t h e y were d i r e c t e d . " ( 75)
-- y
am
--
- --- _--n___c__- = -
(71 (1880) 5 C O B .
r::i
(74)
A t pp. 236-7.
[ 1881) 50 L . J . Q . B . 201 a t p. 203.
1862) 31 L . J . Bkcy. 87. The i s s u e was Whe$h6iQ t h e enactment
excluded a d i s c r e t i o n a s t o t h e d i s c h a r g e of b a n k r u p t s ; t h e
d e f e c t r e v e a l e d by tlie m a t e r i a l s loo]ced a t was t h e e v i l s a t t e n d -
a n t upon t h e e x i s t e n c e of a d i s c r e t i o n under t h e p r e - e x i s t i n g
l a w and the conclusion drawn was t h a t P a r l i a m e n t meant to
exclude t h e d i s c r e t i o n , See P o B r a z i l ? " L e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y and
t h e I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of S t a t u t e s " (I 961 ) Lc m & & u e e & s l a n d L.J,
pp. 1-22 and s i m i l a r A u s t r a l i a n c a s e s t h e m c i t e d .
(75) A t p. 89. A l a t e r i n s t a n c e of a r e f e r e n c e t o P a r l i a m e n t a r y
p r o c e e d i n g s a t second-hand i s t o be found i n t h e argument of
S i r C h a r l e s R u s s e l l Q e C e i n In re--c, =:Ljg;+-ia [I891 ] I G e B e 149
a t p. 153:- " T h i s view i s supported by t h e c x t r a c t from L o r d
S t a n l e y ' s speech i n t h c House of Commons, of August 3 , 1886,
c i t e d i n Clarke on E x t r a d i t i o n , 3 r d E d i t i o n , Appendix,
pp. c c l i x , c c l x , t o which i t may be a d m i s s i b l e t o r e f e r f o r t h e
purpose of i l l u s t r a t i o n ; and on t h e same occasion Mr. J e G O L i i 1 l
suggested t h e f o l l o w i n g d e f i n i t i o n : 'Any o f f e n c e committed i n
t h e c o u r s e of o r fur-Lhering of c i v i l war, i n s u r r e c t i o n or
p o l i t i c a l commotion'. If t h i s d e f i n i t i o n i s c o r r e c t , i t
c e r t a i n l y i h c l u d e s t h e p r e s e n t case."

._ . .
-30-
 U<’ ,
38 9
M a t e r i a l under t h e t h i r d hccding - i.e., t o ascertain the

p a r t i c u l z r remedy which t h e s t a t u t e ;?rovic?es t o 2cal w i t h t h e

mischief - would appear t o b e cxcluclcd by t h e c o u r t s . I n ;Issam

Railways v. Commissioners
- - --
F_I__-- - - -- -.
-r- Y
of--I ---
._-
n l a n d Revenue ( 7 6 ) t h e q u e s t i o n was
_-*- -__ *-_a

raised of t h e s d m i s s i b i l i t y of c e r t 3 i n rccommenLlz-tions of a Royal

Commission on Income Tax which had preceded ’che A t b e f o r e t h e

House G f L o r d s and which c o u n s e l for thc a p p e l l a n t s sought t o

c i t e as p a r t of t h e c o n t e x t of i n t e n t i o n o f P a r l i a m e n t i n
relation t o a particular scction of the Lct. L o r d % r i g h t said:

“ I t i s c l e a r t h a t t h c languagc of a M i n i s t c r o f t h c Crown i n
proposing i n Parliament a measure which e v e n t u a l l y becomes
law i s i n a d m i s s i b l c , and t h e Rcport of t h e Commissioncre i s
even more removed from v a l u e a s eviaence o f i n t e n t i o n . ’ : (77)

39 I t should howevcr b e added t h a t some j u d i c i a l o b s c r v a t i o n s

s i n c e t h e Assam case show a r a t h c r equivocal a t t i t u d e towards

even t h e recommendntions o f a committuc which havtl bcen followed
by l e g i s l a t i o n . Thus i n U z n g V. (78)Dcnning L. J. ( a s he

t h e n wcs), having s a i d t h a t i t was l e g i t i m a t e t o l o o k a t t h e

r c p o r t of a committee t o scc: t h e mischief a t which a s t a t u t e was
d i r c c t c d , went on t o say:

“But you cannot l o o k a t what t h e Committee rccommen?LcC, o r a t

l e a s t , i f you clo l o o k a t i t , you should n o t be unculy
i n f l u e n c e d by i t . I t clods n o t h e l p you much, f o r t h e
simple recson t h a t Parliamcnt may, anC o f t e n C O G S , Cccidc t o
do something d i f f e r e n t t o c u r e t h c m i s c h i e f . You must
i n t c r p r c t t h e words o f P a r l i a m e n t a s Lhey s t a n d , withnut, t o o
much regard t o t h e recommendr.tions or“ t h e Committee.”( 79)

And i n Cozc-Devon Hcssi t a l Mana t Committee and Hunter

(00)
vd. T u r n e r s ~(Sohag) LLd. I’hom2son J., while s t R t i n g t h c t counsel

had c o r r e c t l y maintained t h a t a Report o f t h e Committze on

Limi’cation o f ;ictions i n Cascs o f PGrsonal I n j u r y (81 could n o t be

looked a t t o i n t e r p r e t t h e L i m i t a t i o n iLct
’
I963 ? a p s a r e n t l y
,

p e r m i t t e d counsel t o refer t o t h e r c p o r t f o r t h e n e g a t i v e purpose

o f showing t h 2 t t h u r e w~.sn o t h i n g i n t h e recommenZ2tions
i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h a p a r t i c u l a r c o n s t r u c t i o n of c e r t a i n p r o v i s i o n s
of t h e Act. (82)

-31 -
(iv) &vLement
40. The l i t e r a l r u l e assumes t h e e x i s t e n c e o f " p l a i n words",
t a k i n g no account of t h e i n t r i n s i c f r a i l t y of language, which
i s not i n f r e q u e n t l y demonstrated a t t h e l e v e l o f t h e House of
L o r d s when Law L o r d s d i f f e r a s t o t h e s o - c a l l e d " p l a i n meaning''
o f words. ( 8 3 ) I t t e n d s t o discGurage t h e i n t e r p r e t e r from t e s t i n g

t h e v a l i d i t y of p o s s i b l e c o n s t r u c t i o n s i n t h e broader context o f
t h e i n t e n t i o n o f Parliament.
410 I t i s t r u e t h a t t h e r e i s today a g r e a t e r emphasis on t h e
n e c e s s i t y of r e a d i n g t h e immediately r e l e v a n t e n a c t i n g words of a
s t a t u t e i n a wider c o n t e x t , a s was emphasized i n
(84)
,v. P r i n c e - E r n e s t of Hanqvz. The c o n t e x t u a l s i g n i f i c a n c e o f
o t h e r e n a c t i n g p r o v i s i o n s of t h e s t a t u t e , t h e l o n g t i t l e and t h e
preamble (which were s p e c i f i c a l l y mentioned i n t h a t case) i s now
undoubted. But t h e s h o r t t i t l e although enacted by Parliament
l7a.s no i n t e r r e t a t i v e weight; i t provides only a mode o f
( 857
citation a

42. Headings have been h e l d by t h e c o u r t s t o form p a r t or t h e

c o n t e x t i n which t h e e n a c t i n g s e c t i o n s may be r e a d , ( 8 6 ) but

t h e r e i s a u t h o r i b y i ' o ~ . - L e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t where t h e words of a

s e c t i o n a r e i n themselves c l e a r i n the context o f evepyday usage
?

t h e y must be accepted i n t h a t sense by t h e c o u r t , even i f t h e

heading under which they come s u g g e s t s a d i f f e r e n t meaning, ( 8 7 )
though i t i s doubtf'ul how f a r t h e s e statements can s t a n d a g a i n s t
the g e n e r a l t e n o r of t h e remarks of Lords Somervell and Simonds
(88)
i n trheveo ; %e.
~I - --- -. ~
- _ -- -.- - A______ * -
See .
e g o &pd-idn - -GJI.C r;
referred t o i n p a r a g r % 3 i A
0 ~ t - 1 - ?.LF-.q;: .ye.
-..
-*:e,:=+i 1 -q
See paragraph 9 above.
R e r [ I 9 1 5 1 I K O B O 21 a t p . 27.
W L t L o f T-E+di[l961 ] m. 121 a t
p. 13.1 See a l s o M i i t a - o f E3E3-y. The_DoWager Cou&-gse_ss
o f S e a f i e l d ' s T ~ Q ,I 9 2 8 S.C.52< i n which i t was h e l d t h a t
c e r t a i n words i n t h e s t a t u t e ' ' f e l l t o be c o n s t r u e d i n t h e l i g h t
of t h e context and of t h e heading- o f t h e group o f s e c t i o n s i n
which they occurred''
See F a r w e l l L, J.CA~ i n- F CorpoLation [ I 9 0 71

See paragraph 9 above.

e J.
F
i n R. v. S u r r e
I K.9.- a de
-32-
 I;

G2
#

-:-j L I t i s i l o t c l e a r how f a r , i f a t a l l , marginal n o t e s can be

used t o e l u c i d a t e t h e i n t e n t i o n of P a r l i a m e n t . ( 8 9 ) The view t h a t
they cannot be used i s supported by t h e argument t h a t amendments
t o s i d e - n o t e s a r e not made by e i t h e r House b u t t h a t any n e c e s s a r y
a l t e r a t i o n s a r e made by o f f i c i a l s of Parliamelrt i n c o n s u l t a t i o n
n i t h Zarliamentary Counsel, B u t i f t h i s i s t h e reason f o r
the e x c l u s i o n of side-notes f r o m c o n s i d e r a t i o n , i t would e q u a l l y
j u s t i f y t h e e x c l u s i o n of h e a d i n g s , which a r e s i m i l a r l y t r e a t e d i n
2c?rliment
&'+ 0 I n o l d c a s e s t h e e x c l u s i o n f j o m c o n s i d e r a t i o n by t h e c o u r t s
o f p u n c t u a t i o n i n s t a t u t e s appears t o have been j u s t i f i e d on t h e
groands t h a t no v n c t u a t i o n w a s normally t o be found i n t h e
Pmliarnent Roll 791 ) It has been s a i d t o be very d-oubtful whether
e

i n modern Acts account can be taken o f punctu?.tion. (92) i n

Alexander v. .-Alexander
-1 = _I_=A - -_..
- = (93) t h e High Court of J u s t i c i a r y , however,
zzems t o have considered i t l e g i t i m a t e i n S c o t l a n d t o give + e f f e c t
t o p u n c t u a t i o n i n t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of m o d e r n ' s t a t u t e s . Its
%sl;is,ion might today be j u s t i f i e d on t h e grounds t h a t amendments
?z?liament t o p u n c t u a t i o n would not i n p r a c t i c e be a c c e p t e d , but
~.-ehave a l r e a d y p o i n t e d out t h a t t h i s factor. has not excluded head-
h s P r o m c o n s i d e r a t i o n by t h e c o u r t s .
r-
112 9 9 u r ircpression i s t h a t some o t h e r j u r i s d i c t i o n s a r e n o t t o t h e
same e x t e n t preoccupied with drawing p r e c i s e l i n e s o f demarcation
;LT. -chz mat-beys referred t o i n paragraphs 41-44 above. The q u e s t i o n
1-c g e c z i a s l l y speaking one of weight and a u t h o r i t y r a t h e r than Of
s p e d i t i c i n c l u s i o n or e x c l u s i o n . (94)
-
_ E- -___i__ - . - - _-
Y -
--a -- -- -'---_I_
--
32e I\laxw-ell on I n t p r a r e t a t i o n of S t a t u t e s , 11 t h ed. , pp. 41-2.
IQ G
O
- &
G
= ~ ~ ~ ~ a t p.L 1236 ~Sachs L2oJ. 1
degrined t o b e i n f l u e n c e d by a marginal note b o t h because i t
d i f f e r e d f r o m t h e marginal n o t e t o a corresponding s e c t i o n of an
e a r l i e r Act alzd b e c a u s e , f o r t h e r e a s o n s given i n Maxwell,
"marginal n o t e s a r e normally not regarded f o r purposes o f i n t e r -
p r e t a t i o n , though t h e y may be i n c e r t a i n cases" e

See Lord Iieid i n ma_ndleyvp Dlrec-to-r of- PuJIlic- P r o s e c u t i o n s

[!9641 A,C. 763 a t pp. 789-90,
' i e s on_ S t a t g t e L-aur, 6 t h e d . , pp. 197-9.
P e r Lo$z Re i d i n .Inla_nd R e ~ e - n ~ e - C - o ~ ~ l[ I~960 ~3 i ~ i ~ e
k , C . 748 a t p . 765.
1947 J . C . 155c
iVe understand th2.t i n t h e United S t a t e s b o t h headings Of' t h e
t h e c h a r a c t e r of s i d e - n o t e s i n United Kingdom s t a t u t e s and
p u n c t u a t i o n a r e taken i n t o account. 8.1-I09 o f t h e Uniform
Ccnmercial CoZe p r o v i d e s t h a t s e c t i o n c a p t i o n s s h a l l be
t r e a t e d a s p a r t o f t h e Act; some S t a t e s have omitted t h i s
e e c t l o n i n a d o p t i n g t h e Code,

-33- ., .
. .
 $!e suggest t h a t our own law governing a l l t h e s e b o r d e r l i n e m a t t e r s
should be s i m p l i f i e d . We t h i n k t h a t p u n c t u a t i o n , which i n modern
usage p l a y s an e s s e n t i a l p a r t i n t h e conveyance of meaning, should
be t r e a t e d i n t h e same way a s t h e enacted words and t h a t l o n g
t i t l e s , preambles, headings and s i d e - n o t e s should be a l l p a r t of
t h e c o n t e x t of t h e enacted m a t e r i a l , with which t h e l a t t e r should
(94)
be r e a d i n t h e manner l a i d down i n t h e P-rinte -of H-anover c - a E .
46 0 'When we t u r n f r o u t h e l i t e r a l r u l e t o t h e golden r u l e , We
f i n d t h a t t h e r u l e s e t s a p u r e l y n e g a t i v e s t a n d a r d by r e f e r e n c e
t o t h e a b s u r d i t y , i n c o n s i s t e n c y o r inconvenience, b u t p r o v i d e s no
c l e a r means t o t e s t t h e e x i s t e n c e o f t h e s e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o r t o
measure t h e i r q u a l i t y or e x t e n t . '?hen a c o u r t d e c i d e s t h a t a
p a r t i c u l a r c o n s t r u c t i o n i s absurd, i t imgliLs, although often
t a c i t l y , t h a t t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n i s Lbsurd because i t i s i r r e c o n s i l -
(95)
a b l e w i t h t h e g e n e r a l p o l i c y of t h e A c t . Thus i n Lave
-0altCs

(where t h e Court r e a d " a i d s and a b e t s and does any a c t p r e p a r a t o r y

-. Y

t o t h e commission of an offence" i n S. 7 of t h e O f f i c i a l S e c r e t s
Act I 9 1 1 a s " a i d s and a b e t s or does any a c t p r e p a r a t o r y t o t h e
commission o f an offence'') t h e u n d e r l y i n g assumption was t h a t t h e
A c t was framed t o f i t i n w i t h t h e g e n e r a l p a t t e r n of t h e c r i m i n a l
(96)
law. S i m i l a r l y , i n R i d d e l l V . R-ELd (where t h e m a j o r i t y of t h e

House o f Lords h e l d t h a t t h e words " o u t s i d e t h e a r e a of' t h e

b u i l d i n g under c o n s t r u c t i o n ' ' i n t h e B u i l d i x g R e g u l a t i o n s I 9 2 6
made under s. 79 o f t h e F a c t o r y and Workshop Act I 9 0 1 could be
r e a d i n e f f e c t a s ' ' o u t s i d e t h e a r e a used i n t h e b u i l d i n g o p e r a t i o n s " ) ,
t h e f i n d i n g t h a t any o t h e r c o n s t r u c t i o n would be "narrow and
((27)
\ / I /

u n p r o f i t a b l e " ( L o r d Thanlcerton) ' ' i l l o g i c a l and i n e x p l i c a b l e "

(94) See paragraph 9 above. (96) 1942 S.C. (H.L.) 51; sub nomP
P o t t s or R i d d - e l l v. Reid [ I 9 4 3 1
C
I
Y--
-.-
---

-34-
 U'*
(Lord Russell o f Killowen) 9G)and "paradoxical" and " g e n e r a l l y
incohvenient and unworkable" (Lord % r i g h t ) (99)can only be
explained by r e f c r e n c e t o t h e purpose 02 t h e Building
Regulations and t h e i r p a r e n t Act. I n f a c t t h e golden rule on
c l o s e r examination t u m s o u t t o be a d i s g u i s e d and u n s a t i s -
f a c t o r y form o f t h e mischief r u l e .
47 0
The mischief r u l e a s expressed
... ,:....
.. ..
c l o s e r t o a s a t i . s f a c t o r y statement o f p r i n c i p l e . . I t was
however enunciated b e f o r e t h e r u l e s excluding c e r t a i n m a t e r i a l
which might b e a r on t h e mischief and " t h e t r u e rezson o f t h e
remedy" had been developed. It i s not surprising therefore
t h a t , w i t h t h e l i m i t a t i o n on t h e means -to give i t e f f e c t and
having regard t o the s t r e n g t h o f a t r a d i t i o n o f l i t e r a l
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n which h a s developed s i n c e i t was decided,
Heydon's Casg, while o f t e n p r a i s e d , i s widely n e g l e c t e d i n
practice.
48 Turning to t h c r u l e s governing t h e a d m i s s t i h i l i t y o f
m a t e r i a l which might b e a r on t h e mischief o r rcmedy, i t appears
e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t , t o a s c e r t a i n t h e mischief a t which a s k a t u t e
i s aimed, i t i s p o r m i s s i b l e t o c o n s u l t r e p o r t s o f comrnittces,
although n o t i n a l l p r o b a b i l i t y t o r e f e r t o t h c i r recommcnda-
t i o n s t o e l u c i d a t e t h e remedy provided by t h e s t a t u t e s . One
suggested reason f o r excluding t h c l a t t e r i s t h e Pact t h a t
p a r t i c u l a r recommendations o f a committee may n o t have been
incorporated. i n the Bill subsequently p r e s e n t e d t o Parliament
o r may have bcen i n c o r p o r a t e d only with m a t e r i a l modifications.
But i f , a s we have suggested(lC1) t h e concept o f t h e mischief o f
a s t a t u t e i n v o l v e s n o t merely n e u t r a l information about a s t a t e
o f f a c t s o r law b u t some i m p l i c a t i o n s a s t o the i n t e n t i o n o f
Parliament i t i s a l s o p o s s i b l e t h a t Parliament may i n t h e
r e l e v a n t s t a t - u t e have n o t had i n mind p r e c i s e l y t h e same
mischief a s the committee which r e p o r t e d p r i o r t o t h e s t a t u t e .

(5;) A t p. 16. ( l a c ) Sec paragraph 22 above.

(99) A t P. 22. (101) SCC paragraph 35 above.

-3 5-
 However, i t seems c l e a r t h a t P a r l i a m e n t a r y proceedings cannot be
c o n s u l t e d t o a s c e r t a i n t h e n a t u r e and scope of an i n t e n d e d remedy,
nor i n t h e modem law can i t be c o n f i d e n t l y asser'ced t h a t t h e y
may be r e f e r r e d t o for t h e purpobe of a s c e r t a i n i n g t h e mischief.
If t h e o b j e c t i o n s t o r e f e r e n c e t o P a r l i a m e n t a r y Liroceedings could

be surmounted, we s e e no v a l i d reason ~ h y
t h e mischief found b y ,
o r s p e c i f i c recommendations o f , committees shov.1d n o t be taken i n t o
account'by the courts.

$9 0 I n considering the a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f Parliamentary proceedings,

i t i s n e c e s s a r y t o c o n s i d e r how f a r t h e m a t e r i a l admitted might be
--_--
relevant t o t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i v e t a s k o f t h e c o u r t s , how f a r it would
a f f o r d them r e l i a b l e gxidance, and how f a r it ivl:ould be s u f f i c i e n t l y
-L
-n
-- s v a i l a b l e t o t h o s e t o whom t h e s t a t u t e i s addressed.
50 If t h e i n t e n t i o n of P a r l i a m e n t i s n o t t o be t r e a t e d 8s a

mere figure of speech, i t c a n h a r d l y be denied t h a t p r o c e e d i n g s i n

P a r l i a m e n t may be r e l e v a n t t o a s c e r t a i n t h a t i n t e n t i o n . I t is
. --- .- . .----
(102)
howevei? a m a t t e r o f c o n t r o v e r s y whether t h e r e i s a l e g i s -
l a t i v e i n t e n t capable o f d i s c o v e r y a p a r t f r o m t h e language of t h e
(103)
s t a t u t e . 111 Calomon
-_I -- y o S@Lo-ncq L o r d Yatson s a i d :
' ! I n t e n t i o n of t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i s a comion b L i t very s l i p p e r y
p h r a s e which, p o p l a r l y unuerstood, may s i g n i f y a n y t h i n g
from i n t e n t i o n embodied- i n p o s i t i v e enactment t o s p e c u l a t i v e
o p i n i o n 8 s t o what t h e l e g i s l a t u r e probably Would have
meant, a l t h o u g h t h e r e h a s Leen an omission t o e n a c t i t .
I n a c o u r t of law o r e q u i t y , what t h e l e g i s l a t u r e i n t e n d e d
t o be done o r n o t t o be done can only be l e g i t i m a t e l y
a s c e r t a i n e d from what i t h a s chosen t o e n a c t e i t h e r b y
e x p r e s s words o r by r e a s o n a b l e o r n e c e s s a r y i m p l i c a t i o n . If ( 104)
(105)
And i n h 4 s o r and S-t I ! g l g n

See i n p a r t i c u l z r P r o f e s s o r Alf R O S S , Law and

p . 143; Radin, " S t a t u t o r y I n t e r p r e t a t i o n lm3a 43
ci-iWfL-
? ii
Har_vard-LAEz 863; L a n d i s , "A Note on ' S t a t u t o r y I n t e r p r e t a t i o n' 9
F 9 7 0 T 4 3 Harvard L , R . 886; Payne, "The I n t e n t i o n o f t h e
-I___=-

L e g i s l a t u r e i n the I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f S t a t u t e s ? ' C u r r e n t LegaL

Problems, 35l 96
(103) [I8971 A,C. 22.
(104) A t p. 38.

(105) [I9521 A.C. 189*

-36-
 c,

i n which Denning L. J. ( a s he then was) had s a i d i n t h e Court U' i

Appeal:
r7Ne s i t h e r e t o f i n d out t h e i n t e n t i o n o f Parliament and of
M i n i s t e r s [ t h e case concerned i n t e r a l i a t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n
o f an Order made by t h e M i n i s t e r of Health] and t o c a r r y i t
out and we do t h i s b e t t e r by f i l l i n g i n the gaps and making
o f t h e enactment than by opening i t up t o d e s t r u c t i v e
a;ial-ysi s ( :06)
L o r d Sirnonds Sn the Eouse of L o r d s made t h e reply:
"The g e n e r a l p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t i t i s t h e duty o f the c o u r t
t o f i n d out t h e i n t e n t i o n of Parliament - and n o t only o f
Parliament b u t 9f M i n i s t e r s also - cannot by any means be
supgorted, .( 107)

51 0 The apparent d i f f i c u l t i e s which a r i s e i n t h e a n a l y s i s of

t h e concept o f t h e l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t may hovJevcr be c l a r i f i e d
i f a dl s t i n c t i o n i s drawn between l e g i s l a t i v e intenit, i n %k@
sense o f t h e L-ntgn- i n which t h e l e g i s l a t u r e in.tended
p a r t i c u l a r words t o be understood and l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t i n t h e
sense o f t h e purpose which the l e g i s l a t u r e intended t o
achieve (-1 06) Thus i t i s p o s s i b l e t o a g r e e with L o r d Simonds
t h a t t h e r e a r e many occasions when i t would be unrewarding t o
seek f o r t h e l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t i n t h e sense of t h e intended
meanins o f p a r t i c u l a r w o r d s , when f o r example Parliament h a s

l a i t ! dcvm s e r t a i n consequences which are t o f o l l o w an " a c c i d e n t

a r i s 2 n g i n t h e course of the employmenti*(.jGS)while l e a v i n g t h e
c o u r t s t o decide what l i e s w i t h i n t h e course o f employment; but
i t i s a i s o p o s s i b l e t o accept Denning L.J's view t h a t i t i s t h e
duty o f t h e c o u r t s i n such a case " t o f i n d out t h e i n t e n t i o n o f
Parl.iarmnt and c a r r y i t out by f i l l i n g i n t h e gaps and
xaking sence of t h e enactment", i f t h e i n t e n t i o n of Parliament

i s h e r e urdcrstood t o mean t h e purpose o f Parliament i n r e f e r r i n g

t o a c c i d e n t s a r i s i n g out of o r i n t h e course of employment i n t h e

\iVorkm~'n'sCompensation Act 1897. A s regards the r e a l i t y o f

l e g 5 s l a t i v e i n t e n t i n t h e sense o f t h e purpose of t h e l e g i s l a t u r e

-37 -
:w
i n r e s p e c t of a s t a t u t e we s e e f o r c e i n t h e statement t h a t :
"If [ l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t ] i s looked upon a s a common
agreement on t h e purposes of an enactment and a g e n e r a l
u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e k i n d o f s i t u a t i o n a t xhicli i t i s aimed,
t o deny t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t i o n i s t o deny
t h e e x i s t e n c e of a l e g i s l a t i v e f i n c t i o n . " (110)
We would add t h a t t h e same r e a s o n i n g would apply i n many b u t n o t
a l l s i t u a t i o n s where t h e l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t i n t h e sense o f t h e
i n t e n d e d meaning o f p a r t i c u l a r words i s i n i s s u e .
52 e Ye do n o t t h i n k t h a t a r u l e e x c l u d i n g ParLiamentary proceed-
i n g s cannot be supported s o l e l y on t h e grounds t h a t they can have
no r e l e v a n---
-___I_
c e t o t h e s t a t u t e which emerges f r o m them. The problem
of t h e r e l i a b / l i t , of P a r l i a m e n t a r y m a t e r i a l when used for t h i s
purpose i s more complex.
oi' P a r l i a m e n t a r y h i s t o r y has had many s e v e r e

critics. I t h a s been s a i d t h a t t h e purpose of d e b a t i n g a B i l l i s

t o s e c u r e consent t o i t s terms and t o e x - l a i n t h e i n t e n t and mean-
i n g of i t s p r e c i s e language only t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e e x p l a n a t i o n
will f u r t h e r t h e o b j e c t o f g e t t i n g consent t o i t s p a s s a g e ; that
t h e p r o c e s s o f e n a c t i n g l e g i s l a t i o n i s n o t "an i n t e l l e c t u a l
e x e r c i s e i n t h e p u r s u i t of t r u t h b u t an e s s a y i n p e r s u a s i o n o r
perhaps almost seduction" e I n t h e s e circumstances i t i s suggested.
t h a t " t o appeal from t h e c z r e f u l l y pondered terms of t h e s t a t u t e ko
t h e h u r l y - b u r l y of P a r l i a m e n t a r y d e b a t e i s t o anpeal f r o m P h i l i p
(Ill) 71-12)
sober t o P h i l i J u s t i c e Jackson and P r o f e s s o r

Henri Ca2il;aiit have a l i k e p o i n t e d out -the d i s a d v a n t a g e s of t h i s

e x t r i n s i c a i d from which s o many diverse c o n s t r u c t i o n s can f i n d
support somewhere i n t h e v a r y i n g s t a t e m e n t s mad-e d u r i n g t h e

(IIG) "A R e v a l u a t i o n of t h e Use of L e g i s l a t i v e H i s t o r y i n t h e F e d e r a l

C o u r t s " , (1952) 51 Columbia L.R. I 2 5 a t p. 126.
(Ill) See 6 . A. Corry "The Use o f L e g i s l a t i v e E i s t o r y i n t h e
I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of S t a t u t e s " (1 954) 32 Canadi-a-n B-.-R. 624
a t pp. 621-2.
(112) "The Meaning of S t a t u t e s : What Congress s a y s or what t h e
C o u t says" (I948) 34 A. B. A. J o u r n a l 535. x

(I13) "L' i n t e r p r g t a t i o n des L m s -tiaavnur;preparatoires~'

i n Receuil d'Etudes sur 1 f.-c~D rp,i t -CP -l-'go-me-uq
du D o s e n P r a n c o i s - ~ ~ S i~r e~y 1 935 2C4 i n nhich t h e
a u t h o r r e f e r s t o t h e s u p e r i o r i t y o f t h e E n g l i s h approach.
 -f- ,

U-,
p r o g r e s s through t h e s t a g e s o f i t s enactment. Another American
critic:('''-)has g u t t h e m a t t e r i n t h i s way:
"The c o u r t s used t o b e f a s t i d i o u s a s t o where t h e y looked
for t h e l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t i o n . They used t o c o n f i n e t h e
e n q u i r y t o r e p o r t s by c o m n i t t e e s [of t h e l e g i s l a t u r e ] and
s t a t e m e n t s by t h e member i n charge o f t h e B i l l , b u t now t h e
p r e s s u r e of t h e orthodox doc-triEe h a s s e n t them fumbling
about i n t h e ashcans o f t h e l e g i s l a t i v e p r o c e s s Cor t h e
s h o d d i e s t unenacted e x p r e s s i o n s of i n t e n t i o n . " (1'15)
Apart from t h e s e g e n e r a l d a n g e r s , t h e r e i s t h e p m t i c u l a r danger
t h a t i f P a r l i a m e n t a r y h i s t o r y can be appealed t o as evidence O f
i n t e n t i o n , such evidence can be d e l i b e r a t e l y manufa-ctured d u r i n g
t h e l e g i s l a t i v e p r o c e s s by t h o s e w i t h an axe t o g r i n d , (lIG)
54 0 I n most c o u n t r i e s o u t s i d e t h e Commonwealth, however
l e g i s l a t i v e m a t e r i a l i s ad-missible b e f o r e t h e c o u r t s for t h e
purposes of s t a t u t o r y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , I n t h e United - S t a t e s i t
i s noteworthy th2.t much of t h e c r i t i c i s m of American judges and
w r i t e r s h a s been d i r e c t e d not s o much a g a i n s t i t s u s e i n
p r i n c i p l e a s a g a i n s t i t s abuse i n p r a c t i c e . F o r example,
J u s t i c e F r a n k f u r t e r (I1 7 h a s said:
"Lpurious u s e of l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y must not swallow t h e
l e g i s l a t i o n s o a s t o g i v e p o i n t t c t h e quip t h a t only when
l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y i s d o u b t f u l do you go t o t h e s t a t u t e .
*?bile cour-Ls a r e no l o n g e r c o n f i n e d t o t h e language, t h e y
a r e s t i l l bound by i t . Violence must n o t be done t o t h e
w o r d s chosen by t h e l e g i s l a t u r e u n l e s s no doubt c a n b e
l e f t t h a t t h e l e g i s l a t u r e h a s i n f a c t used a p r i v a t e code,
s o t h a t what a p p e a r s t o be v i o l e n c e t o language i s merely
r e s p e c t t o s p e c i a l usage. I n t h e end, language and
e x t e r n a l a i d s , each accorded an a u t h o r i t y deserved i n t h e
c i r c u m s t a n c e s , rmst be weighed i n t h e b a l a n c e o f j u d i c i a l
judgment I ' ( II ; )
'?here l e g i s l a t i v e m a t e r i a l i s a d m i s s i b l e t h e c o u r t s become
accustomed 'io t h e ways o f t h e l e g i s l a t o r s and l e a r n t o
d i s c r i m i n a t e between t h e v a l u e o f d i f f e r e n t Binds 9f n i a t e r i a l .
Thus, i n g e n e r a l , p a r l i a m e n t a r y d e b a t e s a r e much l e s s f r e q u e n t l y
used t h a n t h e r e p o r t s p r e s e n t e d by P a r l i a m e n t a r y comrliittees.

-39-
 .'
:U
I n so f a r as d e b a t e s a r e u s e d , t h e i r unevenness, f r o m t h e p o i n t
of view of t h e c o u a t s , i s recognized and d i s t i n c t i o n s a r e comm0nl.y
drawn between t h e l e a d i n g speeches of m i n i s t e r s or o t h e r s who
i n t r o d u c e o r have t h e c a r r i a g e of l e g i s l a t i o n and o t h e r speeches
made i n t h e g e n e r a l d-ebzte.

55. T h e p r a c t i c e i n t h e use of l e g i s l a t i - & m a t e r i a l s Varies

i.
f r o m country t o c o u n t r y , p a r t i c u l a r l y having r e g a r d t o r e l a t i v e
u s e f u l n e s s f o r s t a t u t o r y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e m a t e r i a l . In a
comparison of t h e s i t u a t i o n i n t h i s r e s p e c t i n F r a n c e , Germany
(1.19)
and Bwcden i t h a s been g o i n t e d o u t t h a t -the p r o c e d u r e s i n
Germany and Sweden produce more m a t e r i a l , p a r t i c u l a r l y r e p o r t s

by committees which i s s u i t a b l e f o r i n t e r p r e t a t i v e purposes

t h a n do t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g procedures i n France Accordingly,
t h e r'rcncil c o u r t s a r e n o t a b l e t o d e r i v e as much a s s i s t a n c e from
t h i s c a t e g o r y of t r a v a u x prgpgrato-ires a s do t h e c o u r t s o f .the
-
-a

other countries. I t w i l l be observed ~ r o n

Appendices C znd D
t h a t t h i s m a t e r i a l i s given a high vzllue t h e c n u r t s j.n t h e
Scandinavian c o u n t r i e s and t h a t i t s uFe does n o t appear t o g i v e
r i s e t o any s p e c i a l d i f f i c u l t y .

56 I t must be acknowledged t h a t our e x i s t i n g l e g i s l a t i v e

p r o c e d u r e s a r e n o t e s p e c i a l l y w e l l adapted for t h e u s e of
P a r l i a m e n t a r y m a t e r i a l because of t h e absence o f committee
r e p o r t s of' t h e k i n d which a r e found most u s e f u l i n othe?
countries, N e v e r t h e l e s s we have come t o t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t
t h e s t r i c t n e s s of t h e r u l e e x c l u d i n g t h e u s e of such m a t e r i a l
cannot b e j u s t i f i e d merely because a t p r e s e i i t i t nay sometimes
be u n r e l i a b l e , , One c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s t h a t we cannot assume t h a t t h e
procedure o f P a r l i a m e n t i s immutable. Secondly, even if i t i s
only i n t h e exceptional case t h a t Parliamentary material could
be of v a l u e , i t mag b e s a i d t h a t , s o g r e a t i s t h e burden o f

(1 19) See 'rofesso, S t i g Strbmholm, "Legisla-Live M a t e r i a l and

C o n s t r u c t i o n o f S t a t u t c s : Notes on t h e C o n t i n e n t a l
Agproach" , Scandina-viaa Skudies ~~i-&,.,wL--IJl pp. 175-21 8 ,

-40 -
 U';
s t a t u t o r y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n on t h e cour'is, whatever measure o f
a s s i s t a n c e can be d e r i v e d f r o m t h i s source should be made
a v a i l a b l e t o them, The t h i r d c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s t h a t , a s we have
i n d i c a t e d above, "<)the admission o f l e g i s l a t i v e m a t e r i a l would
make p o s s i b l e a more s a t i s f a c t o r y and c o n s i s t e n t t r e z t m e n t by

t h e c o u r t s of p r e - l e g i s l a t i v e m a t e r i a l such a s committee r e p o r t s .
57 I n c o u n t r i e s where l e g i s l a t i v e m a t e r i a l i s used, i t i s
recognized t h a t old onactmeiits r a i s e s p e c i a l problems. It i s
g e n e r a l l y admiLted t h a t t h e v a l u e 0 2 t h i s m a t e r i a l t e n d s t o
l e s s e n w i t h t h e passage o f time and with changes i n t h e
s i t u a t i o n s t o which t h e law a p p l i e s . The e x t e n t t o which i t
may be p r o f i t s b l e t o l o o k a t t h e ? a r l i a m c n t a r y h i s t o r y of o l d
enactments i s connected i n a number o f c o u n t r i e s w i t h t h e rriuch
debated i s s u e s between t h e F ' s u b j e c t i v e " and "ob jec-tive" t h e o r i e s
of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , t h e former emphzsizing t h e r o l e o f t h e
h i s t o r i c a l l e g i s l a t o r , t h e l a t t e r emphasizing t h a t a s t z t u t e
once promulgated develops i t s own momentum. ('*') In practice
t h e problem t e n d s t o be solved by a compromise view whereby
Parliamciitary n a t e r i a l i s used f o r guidance d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d
f o l l o w i n g t h e L3ronuigation o f t h e law b u t with t h e passage o f
time grea.ter stress i s laid- on o t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n s b e e r i n g on
(w)
i t s intcrpret::tion. I n t h i s way t h e s u b j e c t i v e and o b j e c t i v e
t h e o r i e s have been adapted t o t h e p r a c t i c a l working o f t h e
courts. T h i s problem however would n o t w i s e i n our system a s

one o f immediate c o n s i d e r a t i o n , i f , a s we envisage, any r e l a x a -

t i o n s o f t h e r u l e , excluding l e g i s l a t i v e m a t e r i a l , i f t h e y were
t o be made a t a l l , wouid only govern f u t u r e s-Latutes.Rhon t h e l a t f , e r
e v e n t u a l l y become o l d ,
/ we t h i n k t h a t B r i t i s h c o u r t s when d e a l i n g with
P a r l i a m e n t a r y m a t e r i a l . ( i f i t z e r e admitted) ,and indeed with

Committee r e p o r t s b e a r i n g on %>sa would f i n d i t

n e c e s s a r y t o 8dopt a s i m i l a r approach t o t h a t t a k e n by

Continental courts. , . -. In t h i s
connection i t must be borne i n i d what i s b e i n g d i s c u s s e d i s
t%a? /
(1 20) See p w a g r a p h Lc8 above,
(121) Sec A p p n & x 3 . 2 ,
-
-*&I
 .'

.'U t h e use of' e x t r a n e o u s m a t e r i a l only a s an a v a i l a b l e a i d t o a

c o u r t i n t h e c o n s t r u c t i c n o f a s t a t u t e ; i t must b e w i t h i n t h e
c o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n t o determine whether and how f a r t h e m a t e r i a l
should a f f e c t t h e meaning t o bc given t o t h e s t a t u t e .

58 Q
We r e c o g n i z e t h c t thorc: i s c o n s t d e r a b l e weight i n t h e
o b j e c t i o n s which may b e r a i s ? d t o t h o admission o f l e g i s l a t i v e
m a t e r i a l by r e f e r e n c e t o t h e t h i r d c r i t e r i o n which we have
suggested, n a n c l y i t s a v a i l a b i l i t y- t o t h o s e t o whom the s t a t u t e
i s directed. Thus i n t h e United S t a t e s J u s t i c e Jackson h a s
said:
"1, l i k e o t h e r o p i n i o n w r i t e r s , have r e s o r t e d n o t
i n f r e q u e n t l y t o l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y as a guide t o t h e
meaning o f s t a t c t e s . I a m coming to t h i n k i t i s a b a d l y
ovcrdone p r a c t i c e , o f dubious h e l p t o t r u e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n
and one which poses p r a c t i c a l problems f o r a large p a r t o f
t h e l e g a l profession o n l y t h e lawyers o f the c a p i t a l
o r -:he most prosperous o f f i c e s i n t h e l a r g e c i t i e s can have
a l l thc l e g i s l a t i v e material available, The avcrage l a w
offZce cannot a f f o r d t o c o l l e c t , house and index all t h i s
material. I t s u s e by t h e Court p u t s knowlcdge o f t h e law
p r a c t i c a l l y out o f reach of a l l e x c e p t t h e Govcrnment and
a fevi law o f f i c e s e 3 ('I ' 2e)

On t h e o t h e r hand, a s a p p s a r s from t h e m a t e r i a l i n t h e Appendices

t o t h i s paper, a v a i l a S i l i t y h a s n o t , g e n e r a l l y speaking, appeared
t o have caused s d r i o u s d i f f i c u l t i e s i n p r a c t i c e i n t h o s e
European c o u n t r i e s :i1 which P m l i a m e n t a r y m a t e r i a l i s a d m i s s i b l e
f o r i n t e r p r e t a t i v e purpo ses
59 D I n t h e se-Lting of our own system i t may well be s a i d t h a t
some l e g a l p r a c t i t i o n e r s , n o t a b l y small f i r m s o f s o l i c i t o _ - s i n
p l a c e s where l i b r a r y f a c i l i t i e s a r e n o t c o n v e n i e n t l y a v a i l a b l e ,
may find i t difficult to r e f e r t o the volumes o f Hansard, and i n

p a r t i c u l z r to those v3lumes, n o t t o be found i n many l i b r a r i e s ,

which c o n t a i n t h e r e p o r t s o f P a r l i a m e n t a r y S t a n d i n g Committees.
But i n p r a c t i c e , / a s o l i c i t o r w i l l be c a u t i o u s i n a d v i s i n g upon a
'such
p o i n t o f d i f f i c u l t y i n new l e g i s l a t i o n by r e f e r e n c e only t o a
Queen's P r i n t e i - ' ~cop^ of t h e Act,, w i t h o u t s e c k i n g guidance f r o m
a s p e c i a l i z e d commentary which law p u b l i s h e r s a r e normally n o t
-
(.i22) C i t e d b ; ~ C u r t i s ( o p , c i t . n , (.:<;) above) a t pp. 328-9
from A.BeA. J-oLrnal, 1 sL!:C,, 575, I t should be added
t h a t z i t i c i s m i s n o t er.:hasized t o t h c same e x t e n t
by other i;mcric?n v n i t c r s on t h e s u b j e c t .

-42 -
 .r ;

slow i n p r o d u c i n g or f r o m t h e a d v i c e o f c o u n s e l . The t e x t book

(4 2 3 )
writ e r and counsel would b o t h , a s far a s may be n e c e s s a r y on
p o i n t s of d i f f i c u l t y , be i n a p o s i t i o n t o r e f e r 'CO t h e r e l e v a n t
Parliamentary material sild Peference systems and f a c i l i t i e s

would i n p r a c t i c e t e n d to be adapted and i n c r e a s e d t o meet t h e

requirements which e q 3 e r i e n c e showed t o b e n e c e s s a r y . And i f i t
were c o n s i d e r e d t h a t u s e of t h e i n a t e r i a l might involve u n f a i r
s u r p r i s e t o an opponent i n legal p r o c e e d i n g s , t h e o b j e c t i o n might
be met by Rules o f Court i7equiring s u i t a b l e n o t i c e t o be given of

an i n t e n t i o n t o u s e p e r t i c u l a r m a t e r i a l of !his kind.
GO 0 The view inay be t a k e n t h a t t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s i n r e g a r d t o
g i i x a b - z l a and ava_i-?!,ab_i.li-t,of P a r l i a m e n t a r y m a t e r i a l do n o t on
e'.

b a l a n c e j u s t i f y t h e i r t o t a l e x c l u s i o n from c o n s i 6 e r a t i o n by t h e
._-
c o u r t s a s a s t r i c t p r i n c i p l e o f law. ;Je r e c o g n i z e however t h a t
'chis i s a m a t t e r f o r f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n . One p o s s i b l e view i s
that, t h e f u n c t i o n of l e g i s l a t i v e m a t e r i a l i n t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i v e
p r o c e s s c o u l d be bet-Ler performed by s p e c i a l l y p r e p a r e d e x p l a n a t o r y
m a t e r i a l p r e s e n t e d t o P a r l i a m e n t when a B i l l i s i n t r o d u c e d and
(4 24)
modified, i f n e c e s s a r y d u r i n g i t s passage through P a r l i a m e n t .

6-1
e M a t e r i a l which i s used i n some l e g a l systems t o a s s i s t i n
s t a t u t o r y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n has been d i v i d e d i n t o t h r e e main c a t e g o r i e s
( 1 25)
namely, d e s c r i p t i v e m o t i v a t i n g and expounding t e x 3 D e s c r i pti v e
t e x t corriprise t h o s e docuincnts which r e c o r d t h e d e l i b e r a t i o n s and
d e b a t e s o f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e or of o t h e r b o d i e s such a s c o d i f i c a t i o n
commissions ( i n t h e c a s e of i n t e r n a t i o n a l i n s t r u m e n t s , c o n f e r e n c e s
_e__

(123) An example of a text-book, making u s e of Papliamentary

m a t e r i a l , i s t h a t by Magnus Se E s t r i m on t h e Companies
Act 1947.

( 1 24) See p a r a g r a p h s 61 -67.

-43 -
 .
and s i m i l a r b o d i e s ) IVKctLvatlB t e x t s a r e t h o s e which a r e p r e p a r e d
i n connection w i t h a s p e c i f i c l e g i s l a t i v e p r o p o s a l and i n d i c a t e t h e
reasons for i t . ExpogndinA t e x t s a r e t h o s e which comment upon a
law or proposed law, s e c t i o n by s e c t i o n . ‘{le have, so f a r , i n t h i s

paper d e a l t with t h e g o s s i b l e u s e o f t e x t s of t h e f i r s t c a t e g o r y
/w i t h t e x t s o f t h e second category. Fe r e v e r t t o
but only i n p m t
t e x t s of t h e l a s t two c a t e g o r i e s which come i n t o -e x i s t e n c e i n
d i r e c t connection with t h e l e g i s l a t i o n i t s e l f
62. Under our system t h e r e used t o be a somewhat p r i m i t i v e
m o t i v a t i n g t e x t i n t h e shape of a preainble. There a r e a l s o
comparatively s h o r t expounding t e x t s o f a t r a n s i t o r y and Often
rudimentary n a t u r e t o be found i n t h e E x p l a n a t o r y and F i n a n c i a l
Memorandum which i s a’c’cached t o a B i l l on i t s i n t r o d - u c t i o n i n t h e
House o f Commons and i n t h e Explanatory Memorandun v h i c h
accompanies a B i l l on i t s i n t r o d u c t i o n i n t h e House o f Lords.
There a r e f i n a l l y b r i e f expounding t e x t s i n t h e shape 02’ t h e
Explanatory Notes a t t a c h e d t o most s t a t u t o r y i n s t r u m e n t s .
Explanatory Memoranda or Explanatory Notes cannot be c i t e d i n t h e
c o u r t s as a i d s t o t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n o f s t a t u t e s . Fuller eqounding
t e x t s , namely, Rotes on C l a u s e s , a r e p r e p a r e d by Government
Departments f o r t h e use of Fdinisters o r o t h e r s who have t h e t a s k
o f p i l o t i n g l e g i s l a t i o n through t h e v a r i o u s P a r l i a m e n t a r y s t a g e s
and t h e s e t e x t s a r e amendcd a s n e c e s s a r y for each House. They a r e
intended t o e x p l a i n t h e purgose and e f f e c t of each c l a u s e and o f t e n
i n c l u d e p r a c t i c a l examples o f i t s a p p l i c a t i o n . They c o n t a i n a
p r o p o r t i o n o f c o n f i d e n t i a l m a t e r i a l and a r e n o t p u b l i s h e d o u t s i d e
t h e government o r g z n i s a t i o n ,

63 It i s t h e p r a c t i c e i n a number of European c o u n t r i e s t o annex

e x p l a n a t o r y memoranda of b o t h a m o t i v a t i n g and expounding c h a r a c t e r
t o Bills, and t h e s e m e a v a i l a b l e for u s e b y t h e c o u r t s a s a u t h o r -
i t a t i v e ( a l t h o u g h n o t b i n d i n g ) g u i d e s i n t h e e l u c i d a t i o n and i n t e r -
p r e t a t i o n o f t h e laws, Denmark i s one o f t h e c o u n t r i e s i n which
t h i s p r a c t i c e o b t a i n s and t h e purpose and c h a r a c t e r of t h e

-44-
 T "

e x p l a n a t o r y memoranda accompanying B i l l s have r e c e n t l y been t h e

s u b j e c t o f d i r e c t i v e s i s s u e d by t h e Danish Government: the relevant
m a t e r i a l i s s e t *out i n Appendix D.2, The adoption o f a somewhat
s i m i l a r d e v i c e i n t h i s country vas suggested i n a Mote t o t h e 1932
('t 2 6 )
Report o f t h e Committee on M i n i s t e r s ' Powers.
64-
0 We t h i n k t h a t i n p r i n c i p l e t h e p r o v i s i o n o f motivating and
e x - l a n a t o r y m a t e r i a l could be of s u b s t a n t i a l a s s i s t a n c e t o o u r
courts i n t h e i r interpretative task. I t might be h e l p f u l where
t h e c o u r t s have t o d e a l with ambiguous, obscure o r d i f f i c u l t language
o r w i t h provisions of a generalized character. I t would a l s o have
an even more important f u n c t i o n i n connection w i t h t h e v a r i o u s
c o d i f i c a t i o n p r o j e c t s which f e a t u r e prominently i n t h e F i r s t Programme
o f t h e Law,Comnission and of t h e S c o t t i s h Law Commission and which
a r e l i k e l y t o f o r m a v i t a l p a r t o f , t h e work o f b o t h Commissions i n
the future. The o b j e c t o f 8 code i s , i n our u n d e r s t a n d i n g , t o s e t
o u t t h e e s s e n t i a l p r i n c i p l e s which r r e t o govern a given branch of
t h e law. The degree of p a r t i c u l a r i t y i n which t h e a p p l i c a t i o n s of
t h e s e p r i n c i p l e s t o , s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n s a r e s t a t e d i n t h e code may
v a r y , b u t even where de'cailed a p p l i c a t i o n i s l a c k i n g a c o u r t i s
expected t o d i s c o v e r i n t h e code t h e p r i n c i p l e s f r o m which t h e answer
t o a p a r t i c u l a r problem can be workcd o u t . I n such a s i t u a t i o n we
t h i n k t h a t our e x p l a n a t o r y and i l l u s t r a t i v e commentary on t h e code
could provide a u t h o r i t a t i v e , but n o t compelling guidance on t h e
i n t e r p r e t a . t i o n o f t h e cod-e , which, i f i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t h e code i t s e l f
would b o t h overload i t and- import an u n d e s i r a b l e element o f r i g i d i t y .
---- ---- -- -- . --^- _y.__y--------- ___I._-

(126) The n o t e was by P r o f z s s o r Harold J. Laslri who a t pp. 136-7

(Annexe V ) of C m d . 4060 s a i d t h a t a memorandum of
e x p l a n a t i o n might s e t f o r t h t h e purposes o f a B i l l , t h a t
a u t h o r i t y could be--conferred on -the c o u r t s t o u t i l i z e t h e
memorandum a s an a i d i n t h e work of i n t e r g r e t a t i o n , a
judge n o t b e i n g bound thereby but having it a v a i l a b l e a s
"an i n v a l u a b l e guide i n h i s t a s k of d i s c o v e r i n g
what a s t a t u t e i s r e a l l y intended t o mean",,

,-45-
. 'U
65* I t may b e m g g e s t e d t h a t m a t e r i a l of t h i s kind may i n c l u d e
s i a t e m e n t s which compete w i t h t h e s t a t e m e n t s i n t h e enactment
i t s z l f , aiia that -the danger of c o n f u s i o n , i f n o t of c o n f l i c t ,
r r y i l . 1 i i i s r e a s e wi-kh ths s p e c i f i c i t y o f t h e m o t i v a t i n g and

ex-pl_anzito?y mateviial ilioye p a r t i c u l x r l y t h e l a t t e r even though

the co?lrts would b e bound b y t h e e x p l a n a t o r y m a t e r i a l i f
c l e a r l y a t ua2-iance With the sta.tu'ie Tiead i n its t o t a l c o n t e x t .
__
'!le recog!?.l.ilze t h i s ~ f s I ;hut
~ xe t h i n k t h a t it caul-d be minimized

b y s a f e g u a r d s imposed a t t h e 'time when t h e explaiiatory m a t e r i a l

i s prepared: and. i t does n o t appear t h a t i n c o u i i t r i e s where such

e x p l a n a t o r y m a t e r i a l i s used. by t h e c o u r t s undue d i f f i c u l t i e s
have r e s u l t e d .
c:
i)v R
Y E envisage t h a t t h e m a t e r i a l accompanying, 2nd p u b l i s h e d
wiil?, t h e B i l l i n i t s i n t r o d u c t i o n i n P a r l i a m e n t would be p r e p a r e d

by i t s prornc'ce~~s
( i n the c8se o f governnient l e g i s l a t i o n by t h e
z q - ? o p i - ia t e C?pa7;.:ment) under t h e s u p e r v i s i o n OF o f f i c i a l s of
P;)a!2iiarnent.o r Olhei? a p p r o p r i a t e a u t h o r i t y d e s i g n a t e d by and
0 27)
res:?onsibI e to Pa-r.lisment The same arrangemenz s vould
a.-pp.!y -L.? any s l t e p a t i o i l s i n t h e m a t e r i a l made n e c e s s a r y by changes

f.n t5-e 33iX i n t?? co.ni=ss of i t s passcge through P a r l i a n e n t The

u r c c i s e ;'orin of' n s t e r i s i i o f t h i s k i n d would b e for c o n s i d e r a t i o n ,
But i.n t h e c z s e o r h i f f i c u l t p r o v i s i o n s , a g e n e r a l statement o f
p.nposes combined u i t h wcplanations o f t h e s i t u a t i o n s which a r e
c n v i s s g e 3 - a s beinp covered and t h o s e which ::re envisaged as n o t
;)ein,: coverer:. mir;ht ell render p o s s i b l e a clearer and more

e f l e c t i v e c o a m n i ; a t i o n between P a r l i a m e n t t h e C o u r t s and t h e

citizen. T e would ezivisnge a s t h e m o t i v a t i n g and e x p l a n a t o r y

document a mci:orandum i n the n a t u r e of N o t e s on C l a u s e s a s a t
L ~ r e s e nused
t by TMinistere and o f f i c i a l s excluding material o f a
conf iden-cial n a t u r e

27)
(I I t w i l l b e r e c a l l e d t h a t when E x p l a n a t o r y Notes were
f i r s t introdilced for s u b o r d i n a t e legislation an
A u t h o r i t y was appointed t o e n s u r e t h e observance of
standards

-46-
 U' 4

67 I t might be t h a t , a p a r t f r o m u l t i m a t e i n t e r p r e t a t i v e u s e ,
such a memorandum might be of g r e a t a s s i s t a n c e t o the l e g i s l a t u r e
i n d e a l i n g with complex l e g i s l a t i o n , I t might avoid some o f t h e
. misunderstanding which may occur under t h e p r e s e n t arrangements
whereby normally M i n i s t e r s and o f f i c i a l s a l o n e have a c c e s s t o
Notes on C l a u s e s , c o n s i d e r a b l y l i g h t e n t h e burden o f e x p o s i t i o n
on t h o s e having t h e c a r r i a g e o f l e g i s l a t i o n and, perhaps, i n sorrte
c a s e s , e n a b l e more t i m e t o be spent upon p o i n t s of r e a l d i f f i c u l t y c
These c o n s i d e r a t i o n s a r e , of course , ma-t-Lers T o r P a r l i a m e n t and
not f o r t h e Law Commission, b u t we Craw a t t e n t i o n t o them a s
p o s s i b l e a d d i t i o n a l advantages of what is h e r e canvassed. It
would, d o u b t l e s s , continue t o be t h e c a s e t h a t h i i n i s t e r s would have
t h e i r own s p e c i a l b r i e f i n g i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e document made
generally available.

68. lrle now c o n s i d e r what p r a c t l i c a l s t e p s might be taken t o e f f e c t

I
t h e changes which we have so far suggested. One p o s s i b i l i t y is to

recognize t h a t u l t i m a t e l y whatevcr g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e s may be l a i d

down by s t a t u t e , i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s dependent upon t h e a t t i t u d e s of
t h e judges, and indeed upon t h e q u a l i > y o f t h i n k i n g about t h e
s u b j e c t of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n b o t h i n t h e c o u r t s and i n l e g a l w r i t i n g s
and t o conclude t h a t t h e n a t t e r i s b e s t l e f t t o be d e a l t with by
the judges themselves. A second a l t e r n a t i v e i s t o endeavour t o

s t a t e comprehensivel~yt h e p r i n c i p l e s of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n I n s t a t u ' t o r y
form. I n e f f e c t t h i s would involve c o d i f y i n g t h e rules o f i n t e r -

$ r e t a t i o n , a n d we have l i t t l e h e s i t a t i o n i n s u g g e s t i n g t h i s i s 8

f i e l d n o t s u i t a b l e for c o d i f i c a t i o n ; even i n c o u n t r i e s with t h e

most h i g h l y c o d i f i e d systems t h e p r i n c i p l e s of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n r e s t
on a body of f l e x i b l e d o - c t r i n e developed by legal. w r i t e r s and by
t h e p r a c t i c e of t h e c o u r t s . A t h i r d c o u r s e ~ o u . l d involve a l i m i t e d
degree of s t a t u t o r y i n t e r v e n t i o n i n t h i s f i e l d , l a y i n g clown broad

guide l i n e s by way of a coi2rective t o a tendency t o an undue degree

-47-
 .‘

. ’U
o f l i t e r a l i s m , which, ‘we have s u g g e s t e d , h a s l a r g e l y p e r s i s t e d
(I 28)
under t h e E n g l i s h and S c o t t i s h systems.

69 In e f f e c t some Commonwealth c o u n t r i e s have made ai? a t t e m p t

on t h e l i n e s o f the t h i r d a l t e r n a t i v e . S e c t i o n 5 ( j ) of t h e
Acts I n t c r p r e t a t i on CL:*, 1924 of iaew Zealandl, which resembles
provisioris i n some Canadian and A u s t r a l i a n l e g i s l a t i o n , r e a d s
a s follows: -
E:vei2y Act and evci-y p r o v i s i o n , o r enactment thereof‘
s h a l l ‘DE:dcemed remed-ial whether i t s immediate
p u r p o i ? t . I s t o d i r e c t the doing o f anything
Parlizmgnt deerns t o be f o r t h e p u b l i c good, 01- t o
p r e v e n t o r p u n i s h t h e d o i n g o f a n y t h i n g i t deems
c o n t r a r y t o f h e p u b l i c good, and s h a l l a c c o r d i n g l y
r e c e i v e such f a i r , l a r g e and: l i b e r a l c o n s t r u c t i o n
a s w i l l b e s t i;:.sure t h e a t t a i n m e n t of t h e o b j e c t o f
t3!: .A,$ aiid of such p r o v i s i o n or enactment according
t o i t E t m e i r i t e n t meaning and s p i r i t ’’ (I 29)
‘Yh2 abovi. p?ovisio_r i n the Act of 1924 re-enacted a p r o v i s i o n i n
t h e New Zealand. I r t e r p r e t a t i o n Act or 1888, ar,d Elr. D e n z i l Yard,
(130)
%he Mew Zczland Law D_raftsman, p o i n t e d out i n 1963 that
althou,gh t h e p r o v i s i o n had been i n f o r c e fo’r 75 y e a r s t h e c o u r t s
had p c l d i r i . t t l e a t t e n t i o n t o i t , b e i n g “so busy c u l t i v a t i n g t h e
trees they have l o s t s i g h t of t h e pathway p r o v i a e d by Parliament
(134
i n t h e A z t r , iilt(:1.gr.eta’~!;.oliAct’’ If t h i s i s t r u e , one r e a s o n
rnay be brcF.us2 e s ? i o r t s t i o i i s t o t h e c o u r t s t o adopt “ l a r g e and

:.ibera!_” i;.,~ei.p:-et;ati.ol-1sb e g t h e q u e s t i o n as t o what i s t h e r e a l

JnCentLon of the l e g i s l a t u r c , which may r e q u i r e i n t h e circumstances
-~- P _.- _TP_iy-uL=T
U _ - = ~ - - ____I -- n * Y I -- - - .

(-128) S u t nci; a p p a x n t i y i n t h e Unitcd S t a t e s , where t h e

kmerican versicni o f t h e l i t e r a l rule - t h e ” p l a i n
mem:ng” r c l e - h ~ . sbeen modified, Scc “The P l a i n
l.!emiiig Rule and i t s Overthrow“ , H z - r t & S a c k s , sec i t .
( n o (10) a b x t ? ! etr 1267 -et_se~q,
i)a

(129) S c ’ 5 o r t h e Canadian I n t e r p r e t a t i o n Act 1952 h a s an

idcx”ica1 t z x t

(130) -Z&zg_L,J,, 4 t h June, 1 9 6 3 , 293*

(131) ~t p e 296.

-48-
 (-1 3 2 )
e i t h e r a broad or narrow c o n s t r u c t i o n of language. Another

reason may be t h a t although t h e New Zealand p r o v i s i o n a t t e m p t s

t o embody t h e mischief approach of I-Ie_yd~~'-s
C C s z i n more modern

language, i t makes no c o n t r i b u t i o n t o t h e problem o f how t h e

mischief and t h e rsmedy envisaged b y t h e l e g i s l a t u r e a r e t o be
ascertained, An attempt. t o meet t h i s l a t t e r d e f i c i e n c y h a s been
mzde i n S. 19 of t h e I n t e r p r e t a t i o n Act 1960 of Ghana which r e a d s
a s follpws:
!?lg,, (I) For t h e purpose o f a s c e r t a i n i h g t h e inischief and
- d e f e c t which an enactment was made t o c u r e , and a s
an a i d t o c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e e n a c t n e n t , a c o u r t
may have r e g a r d t o any text-book or o t h e r work o f
r e f e r e n c e , t o t h e r e p o r t of any comnission of
enquiry i n t o t h e s t a t e of t h e law, t o any
memorandum p u b l i s h e d by a u t h o r i t y i n r e f e r e n c e t o
t h e enactment or t o t h e B i l l f o r t h e enactment and
t o any g a p e r s l a i d b e f o r e t h e Mational Assembly i n
r e f e r e n c e t o i t , b u t not t o t h e debates i n t h e
As s embly
(2) The a i d s t o c o n s t r u c t i o n r e f e r r e d t o i n t h i s
s e c t i o n are i n a d d i t i o n t o any o t h e r accepted aid.''
- 7,-
We t h i n k t h e q u e s t i o n should be asked whether t h e r e i s need
I d .

f o r an a u t h o r i t a t i v e statement s e t t i n g out c e r t a i n g e n e r a l

p r i n c i p l e s of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t a k i n g account o f Commonwealth
expe;-ience. 41e havs t e n t a t i v e l y reached t h e view i n t h e l i g h t of
t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s s e t out i n t h i s p a p e r , t h a t t h e r e i s such a need.
If . t h i s need were admitted, i t would seem t h a t some m a t t e r s would
r e q u i r e s t a t u t o r y enactment, while o t h e r s might be l e f t t o t h e
courts. On t h e o t h e r hand, i t might be t::ought d e s i r a b l e t o
--___a____
-- . - -- _ -x--_u_mp __e- -----.-----_.-- - - ~
(132) S e c t i o n 8 ( 5 ) of t h e Nova 3 c o t i a I n t e r p p e t a t i o n Act does n o t
r e f e r t o a " l i b e r a l g 9 i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and has an &usual form
which d e s e r v e s t o be s e t out i n f u l l :
"Every enactment s h a l l be deemed remedial and
i n t e r p r e t e d t o i n s u r e t h e attainment of i t s o b j e c t s
by c o n s i d e r i n g among o t h e r m a t t e r s :
the occasion and n e c e s s i t y for t h e enactment;
the circumstances e x i s t i n g a t t h e time i t vias passed;
the mischief t o be remedied;
the o b j e c t t o be a t t a i n e d ;
(E] the former law, i n c l u d i n g o t h e r enactments upon t h e
same or s i m i l a r s u b j e c t s ;

[E] t h e consequences of a p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ;
t h e h i s t o r y of l e g i s l a t i o n on t h e s u b j e c t . "

-49-
 i n c l u d e a l l t h e m a t t e r s t o b e d e a l t w i t h i n an e n a c t e d s t a t e m e n t .
Such a s t a t e m e n t would r o v i d e , t o quote t h e l a t e E a s t e r of t h e
033)
2011s , L o r d Evershed, decent b u r i a l a e e for t h o s e so-
called ' rules' which have o u t l i v e d t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s which gave
(-1 3;).
them b i r t h" and which can a t p r e s e n t only be a s c e r t a i n e d by
r e f e r e n c e t o a bod-y of d i f f i c u l t and o f t e n c o n f l i c t i n g case-law.
We do n o t mean by t h i s , however, t h a t the s t a t e m e n t would n o t be
b u i l t upon t h e experience o f t h e judges from gexdo:nJ s Case- onwards
i n dealing with s t a t u t e s . I t would be intended. t o provide a
r e - f o r m u l a t i o n and c l a r i f i c a t i o n o f t h e most v a l u a b l e elements i n
t h a t e x p e r i e n c e , o f f e r i n g some a s s i s t a n c e t o t h e judges i n t h e
p r e s e n t s i t u a t i o n , Rhere t h e y may be "embarrassed by t h e h e r i t a g e
of a m u l t i p l i c i t y of s o - c a l l e d ' r u l e s ' " and f a c e d w i t h an a c c r e t i o n
of case-law i n which "some j u d i c i a l u t t e r a n c e can be c i t e d i n support
o f almost any p r o p o s i t i o n r e l e v a n t t o t h e problems of s t a t u t o r y
(1 35)
i n t e r p r e t a t ion e sv

71 - The statement might well s t a r t from t h e b a s i s t h a t t h e f u n c t i o n

(136)
o f t h e c o u r t s i s t o g i v e a s far a s p o s s i b l e a workable meaning
t o p r o v i s i o n s o f a s t a t u t e a s f o r m a l l y e n a c t e d and give e f f e c t t o t h e
following propositions:

(133) "The Impact o f S t a t u t e on t h e Law o f Englaiid" , Maccabaean

- ,AcSey>
Lecture- i n J u r i s p r u d e n c e Broceedings or the- D-ritish -._

vol. XLII (1956), p . 247.

(134) A t p. 262.
(135) L o r d Evershed, - c a ( n o (133) above) a t pp. 260 and 258"

(136) See Lord Dunedin i n Z h i t n e y v. I . e . C , , [ I 9 2 6 1 A.C., 37 a t p. 5 2 ,

c i t e d by Lord Evershed, a t p . 259; "A s t a t u t e i s
designed t o be workable, and t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h e r e o f by a
c o u r t should be t o s e r v e t h a t o b j e c t u n l e s s c r u c i a l omission
or c l e a r d i r e c t i o n makes t h a t end u n a x t a i n a b l e e t t

-50-
 t h a t t h e meaning cannot be regarded a s c l e a r or
unambiguous u n t i l t h e language ( i n c l u d i n g t h e
p u n c t u a t i o n ) of 'che p r o v i s i o n has been r e a d i n i t s
context;
t h a t t h e c o n t e x t for t h i s purpose i n c l u d e s a l l o t h e r
enacted p r o v i s i o n s of t h e s t a t u t e (inclviding schedules
b u t excluding t h e s h o r t t i t l e ) headings and, i n
respect of f u t u r e s t a t u t e s , side-notes;
(3 37)
t h a t t h e c o n t e x t a l s o i n c l u d e s LGter a l i a the

r e p o r t s of Royal Commissions and of s i m i l a r committees ,

I

conventions and t r e a t i e s and explandl.cpjr' ma-€q?.i,al,,of: t h e

(137) A s emphasized i n paragraph 68 we a r e n o t s u g g e s t i n g a

comprehensive r e s t a t e m e n t o f t h e p r i n c i p l e s of s t a t u t o r y
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Thus e a r l i e r s t a t u t e s on t h e same
s u b j e c t m a t t e r a s a s t a t u t e b e i n g i n t e r p r e t e d and
case-lav; i n which t h e r e i s j u d i c i a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n
o f t h e word or words i n q u e s t i o n may under c l e a r l y
e s t a b l i s h e d present p r a c t i c e form p a r t of the context
t o be t a k e n i n t o account by t h e Court, 'Uhether such
material has the necessary relevance t o e n t i t l e i t t o
be regarded a s :Jart of t h e c o n t e x t i s a q u e s t i o n which
i n our view should be decided by t h e Court according
t o t h e circumstances, u n f e t t e r e d by any r i g i d
presumptions a s t o t h e i n t e n t o f P a r l i a m e n t . I n t h i s
connection we have considered whether t h e r u l e
enunciated i n =parte Campbell (1870) 5 Ch. 703 a t
p. 706 ( t h a t !'where once c e r t a i n vlords i n an Act of
Parliament have r e c e i v e d 8 j u d i c i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n i n
one of t h e S u p e r i o r C o u r t s , and t h e L e g i s l a t u r e has
r e p e a t e d them without any a l t e r a t i o n i n a subsequent
s t a t u t e , - t h e L e g i s l a t u r e must be taken t o have
used them according t o t h e meaning which a Court Of
competent j u r i s d i c t i o n h a s given t o theid') should be
modified by s t a t u t e . W e doubt i f t h i s i s d e s i r a b l e
i n s p i t e of t h e apparent approvsl given t o t h e r u l e by
t h r e e o f t h e Law L o r d s i n B a r r a s v. Aberdeen_ Steam
T r a w l i n g and Fishi-nA Co. 1933 7 r - L . ) 21 ; m33]
A.C. 402. Apart f r o m t h e f a c t t h a t i t i s now open t o
t h e House of L o r d s t o r e v i e v i t s own d e c i s i o n s , and
t h e c a u t i o u s t r e a t m e n t of t h e r u l e by t h e c o u r t s ,
which, i f they accept it a t a l l " , do s o " o n l y w i t h
c o n s i d e r a b l e q u a l i f i c a t i o n s which may i n time render
i t o b s o l e t e s 9 ( A l l e n , OLJ- c i t e ( n . ( I ) a t p. 5 0 9 ) , we
t h i n k t h a t any l e g i s l a t i v e guidance i n t h i s f i e l d would
run t h e danger o f c a u s i n g r i g i d i t y i n t h e r u l e s of
s t a t u t o r y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , which it i s our g e n e r a l
purpose t o remove.
 (1 38)
ki.nd envir;aged i n paragraph 66 o f t h i s p a p e r , which

i n the o p i n i o n of' t h e Court a r e r e l e v a n t t o a s c e r t a i n -

t h e purpose o r purposes i n t e n d e d by P a r l i a m e n t
t o b e achieved by t h e Act i n which t h e
n r o v i s i on oc c u r s and
t h e p a r t i c u l a r s e n s e i n which Parliament intended
zhe language of t h e p r o v i s i o n t o be understood
i n i t s application t o the f a c t s before the
C ourt ;

(d) thaS where i t a p p e a r s t o t h e Court t h a t P a r l i a m e n t had

no i n t e n t i o n a s r e g a r d s t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e
p p o v i s i o n t o t h e p a r t i c u l a r f a c t s OP t h e c a s e b e f o r e
t h e Coui-t, o r h a s f a i l e d t o e x p r e s s any c l e a r l y
ascertainable i n t e n t i o n i n r e l a t i o n t o those f a c t s , t h e
Court , having r e g a r d 'io t h e c h a r a c t e r and s u b j e c t m a t t e r
o f t h e I s g i s l a t i o n , s h a l l impute a meaning t o t h e

2 r o v i s i o n s i n i t s z p p l i c a t i o i i t o t h o s e r a c t s which
b e s t g i v e s efi'ec-2 t o -the intended purpose or purposes
o f t h e ' Act.

I n Item XL'II o f t h e Law Commission's F i r s t Programme, s e t out

i n paragraph 1 abov-e, we r e f e r r e d t o d i P f i . c u l t i e s which may a r i s e
-. - ---- --- -.-- ?
-
a
--
=
.- -
, I' j & ) Having r e g a r d t o t h e considerations discussed i n
paragraph 48 e t se& above, i t might a l s o be c o n s i d e r e d
__P-

d e s i r a b l e t o include i n the "admissible material"

r e p o r t s o f F a r l i a m e n t a r y proceedings, a t l e a s t t o t h e
e x t e n t t h a t t h e y throw l i g h t upon t h e r e l e v a n c e of t h e
m a t e r i a l mentioned i n ( c ) If r e p o r t s o f P a r l i a m e n t a r y
proccedings were t o be a d m i t t e d , t h i s would presumably
be only i n r e s p e c t o f f u t u r e s t a t u t e s .
 U' 'r
j
when t h e c o u r t s a r e c a l l e d upon t o i n t e r p r e t l e g i s l a t i o n
implementing i n t e r n a t i o n a l conventions. The g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e s
o f s t a t u t o r y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n which we have e l a b o r a t e d should
ensure t h a t such c o n v e n t i o n s , whether c o n t a i n e d i n , r e f e r r e d t o
o r even o m i t t e d from t h e implementing l e g i s l a t i o n , w i l l r e c e i v e
due c o n s i d - e r a t i o n from t h e c o u r t s , and t h a t t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s
(-1 39)
which a r o s e i n gEllerIEgG Llnceq, ye Mur-r-aj9 the authority o f
which may have r e s t r i c t e d t h e scope of t h e h e l p f u l d e c i s i o n i n
(140)
gal_omon v ,. C o m m ~ l ~ ~ e r ~ _ _ o oms
- C -m-d
~ s tE x c i s e , do n o t r e c u r ,

There remains however t h e q u e s t i o n what r u l e s o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n

a c o u r t i s t o apply t o an i n t e r n a t i o n a l c o n v e n t i o n , when i t f i n d s
i'c n e c e s s a r y , t o deal with it e i t h e r a s p a r t o f the enacting

p r o v i s i o n s o f a United Kingdom s t a t u t e o r a s p a r t o f t h e a d m i s s i b l e
material relevant t o the enacting provisions of a s t a t u t e . Recent
(141)
d e c i s i o n s as n o t e d above, have emphasized t h e importance of
e n s u r i n g t h a t our i w l e s o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n a r e n o t such a s t o produce
u n d e s i r a b l e d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e meanings g i v e n t o t r e a t y
p r o v i s i o n s by our c o u r t s and t h o s e g i v e n - t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s by t h e
c o u r t s of o t h e r p a r t i c i p a t i n g S t a t e s . The m o d i f i c a t i o n s i n E n g l i s h
p r a c t i c e i n r e g a r d t o i n t e r p r e t a t i o n which might r e s u l t f r o m t h e
a d o p t i c n o f t h e s u g g e s t i o n s made i n t h i s paper would9 i n our
o p i n i o n , c o n s i d e r a b l y l e s s e n t h e gap between t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i v e
approach of our c o u r t s and t h a t o f t h e c o u r t s o f most non-
Commonwealth c o u n t r i e s . But some s p e c i a l problems would remain f o r
consideration including t h e following:

( i ) The r e s o l u t i o n o f d i f f i c u l t i e s which may a r i s e when t h e

o r d i n a r y meaning of t h e t e x t of a 'Lreaty a p p e a r s t o
conflict with i t s objectives,
--__ - - ---_1__.-----,---- -- --------- - -

See p a r a g r a p h 10 above,
P a r a g r a p h 10 above, A s t h e r e n o t e d ( p . I O , n. ( 2 2 ) )
D i p l c c k L,J. found i t n e c e s s a r y t o keep w i t h i n t h e r u l i n g
i n t h e g l l e r m s q c a s e by l i m i t i n g t h e p r i n c i p l e e n u n c i a t e d
i n t h e SalXGn c a s e t o s i t u a t i o n s where t h e words were
u n c l e a r o r ambiguous
.See p a r a g r a p h 11 and n. ( 2 3 ) above,

-53-
 .'
. 'U
( i i ) The r e l e v a n c e o f a t r e a t y ' s preamble, annexes and

r e l a t e d i n s t r u m e n t s , i n c l u d i n g i n p a r t i c u l a r any
p r o t o c o l s of agreed i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , and any
m a t e r i a l i n d i c a t i n g t h a t an e x p r e s s i o n was i n t e n d e d
t o c a r r y a s p e c i a l meaning.
( i i i ) The r e l e v a n c e of p r e p a r a t o r y work and o f subsequent

practicee

t iv) The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t r e a t i e s which have more t h a n

one a u t h o r i t a t i v e language.

(4 The way i n lthich t h e c o u r t s would determine a

q u e s t i o n of L n t e r q a t i----
o n a l law.

(vi) The q u e s t i o n of what t e x t of a t r e a t y (or of a n o t h e r

i n t e r n a t i o n a l instrument e.g. a r e s o l u t i o n ) i s
a d m i s s i b l e i n evidence.
(vii) The weight t o be a t t a c h e d t o d e c i s i o n s of i n t e r n a t i o n a l
t r i b u n a l s or f o r e i g n c o u r t s i n t e r i 2 r e t i n g t h e t r e a t y
i n question.
(viii) Whether t h e r e i s a need t o exclude any o f t h e p r o v i s i o n s
of t h e I n t e r p r e t a t i o n Act 1889, i n r e l a t i o n t o
Treaty-Acts.
74 We have t a k e n t h e view, however, t h a t t h e s e important
q u e s t i o n s should be d e f e r r e d for t h e time b e i n g , pending t h e outcome
o f t h e work on t h e Law of T r e a t i e s which has been c a r r i e d out b y t h e
(442)
I n t e r n a t i o n a l Law Cornmission e
- -
-
-- --
(14.2) See Report of t h e 1 8 t h Working S e s s i o n of t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l
Law Commission, A/CIT.4/191 and 6 t h Report o f t h e Rapporteur,
S i r Humphrey l!!aldoclr A/CM .&/I96.

10th August A 967*

Law Commission, London;
S c o t t i s h Law Commission, hdinburgh.

-54-
. 'U
APPENDIX A (FWTCE)

( A n o t e by M . Manfred Simon, a former P r e s i d e n t of t h e Court of

AjJpeal P a r i s )
*
Methods of I n t e r p r e t @ i o n o f S t a t u t e s ~i n Xse by_ -Frenc_h__-ourts
c y _

A, Introdu_ction
1. I t should immediately be noted t h a t Prench c o d i f i e d law does not

c o n t a i n any s p e c i f i c p r o v i s i o n concerning i t s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .

2. There a r e however some r w l e s t h e French C o u r t s must observe:

(a) a r t i c l e 2 of t h e C i v i l Code s t a t e s t h a t t h e law h a s no
retroactive effect;
(b) a r t i c l e 4 d e c l a r e s t h a t a judge, who r e f u s e s t o g i v e
judgment under t h e p r e t e x t of s i l e n c e , o b s c u r i t y o r
i n s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e law9may be p r o s e c u t e d for d e n i a l of
just ice;
(c) a r t i c l e 5 f o r b i d s judges t o l a y down g e n e r a l p r o v i s i o n s
o r r u l e s when pronouncing judgment on a c a s e submitted t o
t o them.
3. I t should f u r t h e r be added t h a t t h e sLuu_E-&e_7-C-Egsation,t h e

Supreme Court of F r a n c e , h a s t h e t a s k o f "defending" t h e law,

of i n s u r i n g u n i f o r m i t y of '' jurisprudence" (case-law) and o f
m a i n t a i n i n g u n i t y of enforcement of t h e l a x . I n o t h e r words
i t s p r i n c i p a l mission i s t o s e t a s i d e , when r e q u e s t e d t o do s o ,
a l l judgments having i n i t s view v i o l a t e d t h e law o r e s s e n t i a l
r u l e s o f procedure. ( B y " v i o l a t i o n of t h e lawsv one must underst;:.1

"wrongful i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s ' * ) But t h e e f f e c t of t h e c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o i i

i s l i m i t e d t o t h e c a s e r e f e r r e d t o i t , When c e n s u r i n g an award
- . - - m a - -

* L i s t o f abbreviations:
D. = DALLOZ
D.H. = DALLOZ HBBDOMkDAIIIE
D.P. = DALLOZ PERIODIQUE
CHR. = CHRONIQUE
S. = SIREY

-55-
 rendered by a lower c o u r t , i t cannot and does n o t e s t a b l i s h
general r u l e s a p p l i c a b l e i n s i m i l a r c a s e s o I t s d e c i s i o n i s
b i n d i n g only i f . a n d when t h e Court of Appeal, t o which t h e
c a s e i s s e n t a f t e r " c a s s a t i o n C ' adopts i t s r u l i n g . Should t h e
Court of Appeal i t s e l f d e c i d e i n t h e same way a s t h e f i r s t
Court which was o r i g i n a l l y censured or not*conform i n some o t h e r
way t o t h e r u l i n g , t h e p a r t y may r e t u r n b e f o r e t h e Supreme

Court which pronounces t h e n i n p l e n a r y s e s s i o n , The sentence

t h u s given i s b i n d i n g on t h e lower C o u r t , b u t only a s f a r a s
t h e c a s e i n q u e s t i o n i s concerned (Gerard Cornu & J e a n F o y e r ,
\

proc"edure3v- P r e s s e s U n i v e r s i t a i r e s de France , p . 189

4. I t f o l l o w s t h a t French c o u r t s have no s t r i c t l y b i n d i n g r u l e s on
how t h e y should proceed when i n t e r p r e t i n g a s t a t u t e . Case-

law on t h e s u b j e c t i s comparatively r e s t r i c t e d , a f a c t t o b e
explained by t h e above-quoted p r i n c i p l e , i . e . , c o u r t s must n o t

radsoe proceed by e n u n c i a t i n g g e n e r a l l y a p p l i c a b l e r u l e s . (arrgts

de rkglement)

5. Academic w r i t i n g s , however, have e x e r c i s e d a s i g n i f i c e n t

i n f l u e n c e on t h e p r a - c t i c e of C - o u t s ; t h e most important
-.
:*
*
U

t h e o r i e s w i l l h e r e a f t e r be summarized. .
. . . <.
.>?
. .,

B Summary- of some Do-c-trines

6. T h e c l a s s i c a l t h e o r y on i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of s t a t u t e s has been
developed by t h e s o - c a l l e d "School of t h e E x e g e t i s t s " whose
>
predominance 1aste.d approximately d u r i n g t h e l i f e s p a n of
t h e f i r s t g e n e r a t i o n of' lawyers born d u r i n g and immediately
#
a f t e r t h e Napoleonic regime
E 1

7. Geny i n h i s g r e a t work g e t h o d e s - I ? = e t ~ t - & o > m

 -en D r o i t . p r i v % po-gztAf L i b r a i r i e G6n8rale de D r o i t e t de
J u r i s p r u d e n c e , P a r i s , V o l . I , page 6 8 , has d e s c r i b e d as f o l l o w s
t h e c l a s s i c a l method (approximate and summarized t r a n s l a t i o n ) :
''Under a c o d i f i e d c i v i l l e g i s l a t i o n a s o g r s , a l l j u r i d i c a l
s o l u t i o n s must be connected d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y w i t h t h e
w y i t t e n lavi."

" A p p l i c a t i o n of elements of a d e c i s i o n d e r i v e d f r o n t h e t e x t
can only b e t h e r e s u l t o f a s t r i c t and p r i n c i p a l l y
d e d u c t i v e method, supposing as t h e b a s e s of t h e law i t s e l f
a l i m i t e d number of a b s t r a c t c o n c e p t s , c o n s i d e r e d t o be
mandatory ugi=o-L&t o t h e i n t e r p r e t e r n o t l e s s t h a n t o t h e
l e g i s l a t o r himself" ;
and f u r t h e r ( p . 256) he goes on t o say:
"This c o r c e p t i s l i n k e d t o t h e r a t i o n a l i s t i l l u s i o n of
t h e XVIIIth Century w i t h r e g w d t o t h e power of w r i t t e n
l e g i s l a t i o n , c o n s i d e r e d t o be E d i v i n e work, self-
s u f f i c i e n t , a r e v e l a t i o n p e r f e c t and complete of p o s i t i v e
law poured i n t o t h e mould of a system o f mathematic21
p r e c i s i o n . Consequently it i s i n t e r p r e t e d w i t h t h e
c o n v i c t i o n t h a t p u r e l y l o g i c a l , s o t o speak mechcanical
p r o c e d u r e s , can e x t r a c t from i t with c e r t a i n t y a l l
s o l u t i o n s r e q u i r e d by j u r i d i c a l l i f c ; so t h a t one
should never h e s i t a t e t o draw every consequence i n c l u d e d
i n t h e l c g a l formula, b u t a t t h e same time i n such a
manner t h a t , i f t h e t e x t r e f u s e d i t s h e l p , t h e
i n t e r p r e t e r must t a k e c:'.re n o t t o s u b s t i t u t e h i s own
s o l u t i o n ; r a t h e r must he s a c r i f i c e t o t h e c u l t of t h e
l a w t h e p r e s s i n g demands of f a c t s . "

8. T h i s t h e o r y a t t z c h e d g r e a t importance t o t h e t r a v a u x
-
c L___

pr-zparatgires which according t o i t s p r o t a g o n i s t s makes it

possible t o a s c e r t a i n , i n case of doubt, the t r u e intention of
the legislator. I f t h e Jravcux p r g p a r a t o i z do n o t c l a r i f y

s u f f i c i e n t l y t h e problem i n v o l v e d , r e f e r e n c e i s made t o l e g a l
h i s t o r y and, f i n a l l y , t o academic w r i t i n g s . Iiecourse i s also
made t o s o - c a l l e d i 9 1 0 g i c a l p r o c e s s e s v vsuch as argument
a fortiori (Cass, C i v . , 23 May 1856, D.P. 1856.1.208) , to
r e a s o n i n g by analogy ( C a s s a t i o n , Chambres R&nies, 23 May 1845,
D.P. 1845. 1 , 2 2 5 ) o r t o argument -a c----
o n t r a r i o (Cass. C i v . ,
A

7 J a n u a r y 1852, D.P., 1852.1.75) e

 9. Furthermore, i n d u c t i o n a n d ' d e d u c t i o n a r e used: legal
s o l u t i o n s a p p l y i n g t o d i f f e r e n t hypotheses w i l l b e s t u d i e
a g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e w i l l be e s t a b l i s h e d by i n d u c t i o n and t h i s
p r i n c i p l e w i l l t h e n be a p p l i e d by d e d u c t i o n t o the p a r t i c u l a r
case i n question. ( C o l i n Be C a p i t a n t T r a i t s de D r o i t C i v i l ,
new e d i t i o n by J u l l i o t de l a MorandiGre, V o l . I , No. 398

-
e t w.)
c
10. The method i s c r i t i c i s e d by Geny on s e v e r a l a c c o u n t s , 'e.g.,:
i t l e a v e s l i t t l e scope t o s c i e n c e ; i t stagnates legislation;
i t p r e v e n t s ab i n i t i q t h e development of new i d e a s ; i t opens
t h e door t o the widest s u b j e c t i v i s m , "Under t h e p r e t e x t of
b e t t e r r e s p e c t i n g the law, one p e r v e r t s i t s essence" ( - 0 ~ .c i t . ,

p . 6 6 ) o ' T o show t h e l i m i t s t o be a s s i g n e d t o t h e e f f e c t i v e n e s s

of c o d i f i e d l e g i s l a t i o n , GEny r e f e r s t o P o r t a l i s , one of t h e
a u t h o r s of t h e C i v i l Code, who i n h i s "Discours P r % l i m i n a i r e "
has stated:
"To f o r e s e e e v e r y t h i n g i s an u n a t t a i n a b l e goal. Whatever
we d o , p o s i t i v e law c o u l d never e n t i r e l y r e p l a c e the u s e a k
n a t u r a l r e a s o n i n m a t t e r s o f l i f e . T h e needs of s o c i e t y
a r e s o v a r i e d , communications amongst men s o a c t i v e ,
t h e i r i n t e r e s t s s o manifold, t h e i r r e l a t i o n s s o widespread,
t h a t i t i s impossible f o r t h e lawgiver t o p r o v i d e for
e v e r y t h i n g . '' (Gene%
p r " e p a r a t o i r e s du Code

11. G&y's own t h e o r y , which e x e r c i s e d a profound i n f l u e n c e on

the p r a c t i c e o f French C o u r t s (and t h a t i s t h e r e a s o n why w e
quote h i m perhaps t o o e x t e n s i v e l y h e r e ) , i s summarized by h i m
approximately a s follows (se--&,
V o l . 11. p . 221-223)

"This g u i d i n g p r i n c i p l e I can e n u n c i a t e a s follows:

Even i n i t s p o s i t i v e f o r m law appears t o u s as a body
,of r u l e s , f l o w i n g from the n a t u r e of t h i n g s , and t o b e
drawn, by more o r l e s s f r e e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , from s o c i a l
elements
Law above a l l must remain a ' ' l i v i n g m a t t e r " . H e wishes t h e
i n t e r p r e t e r ( t h e l e g i s l a t o r , i n c i v i l m a t t e r s , cannot r e g u l a t e
a l l and sundry) t o be f?ree:

-58-

c
 "to investigate the nature of' things under the conditions
I?
of life, unless he is prevented from doing so . O O o O

by mandatory injunction of the law, which is to say that the

judge, within the limits of his mission, remains his own
master and is free to take his inspiration from:
"the great source of justice and social usefulness,
which nourishes the organic life of the law."
( V o l . I, p. 2 0 7 ) ,

The author therefore sustains ( V o l . 11, pp. 229-230) the

need for the interpreter to reduce to its just proportions
the interpretation of the texts and to be al.lrareof the vast
field of "free scientific investigation" remaining to him.

/
12. Even nowadays, Geny's theories exercise a powerful influence
on administrative tribunals administrative law being to a
great extent judge-made law. It would be going too far in
the framework of this study to go into details. G6nyss
actualness may however be gathered from: "Essai sur les
m6thodes jurictionnelles du Conseil dVEtat" by R. Latournerie
and "De la m2thode et de la technique du droit privg positif
%
a celles du droit administratif" by Bernard Gany (the son of
- Jubilaire
the author) in Con,seil,d'%t-d Livre
_ym-cy% - 9 Puis
m Recueil
---A --a-

Sirey.

- * I
13. Planiol d Ripert (Traite elEmentaire de Droit civil, 6th
edition, V o l . I, Pzris, 1911) go even further than G b y . For
them, law cannot be conceived i , ~
its fullness independently
from case-law ( jurisprudence) which corresponds in fact
to a customary law of recent forn,ation, the dicta of which
have become mandatory rules. Case law is the only one
according to these authors, the decisions of which are

-59-
 i n f a c t e n f o r c e a b l e and t h e r e f o r e o f t h e utmost importance
f o r the p a r t i e s . These eminent s c h o l a r s t h i n k t h a t i n t h e
e x e r c i s e o f h i s o f f i c e , t h e judge may w e l l r e f e r t o d e c i s i o n s
formerly rendered i n s i m i l a r c a s e s .
"The j u d i c i a r y ' ' they s t a t e , " i s never bound by i t s
former case-law, b u t , i n f a c t it f r e q u e n t l y conforms
t o i t and t h e c o n s t m c y of i t s decisions represents I?
f o r the p a r t i e s the equivalent of mandatory l e g i s l a t i o n .
.-
(op. c i t p 6 Lgt-fLnz)
Case law, f o r t h e s e a u t h o r s , i s an e s s e n t i a l l y f l u e n t
customary law, a p r e c i o u s s t a b i l i t y b e i n g however d e r i v e d
from t h e J u d i c i a r y ' s s t r o n g tendency t o c r e a t e a t r a d i t i o n
____ ____
and from t h e c o n t r o l e n t r u s t e d t o t h e Cour de- . C a s s a- t i o n ,
.=-a-*

which maintains on t h e whole u n i f o r m i t y of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .

(Compare on t h i s p o i n t : A. C o l i n & 11. C a p i t a n t 7 Coxcz
~ ~35-40,
k l " e m e n t a i r e ~ D r o i ~ ipp. , P a r i s , E d i t i o n s Dalloz)

lke The school o f thought r e p r e s e n t e d by G h y , P l a n i o l and

R i p e r t as well a s o t h e r s has e x e r c i s e d s i g n i f i c a n t
i n f l u e n c e on t h e p r c c t i c e o f t h e C o u r t s . Under t h e i r impact

J u r i s p r u d e n c e b e t w e e n t h e end o f t h e XIXth and t h e f i r s t

decades o f t h e XXth c e n t u r i e s h a s produced a more p r e c i s e
statement of t h e law; i t has completed-, and, i t may be s a i d ,
modified, i n some c a s e s even, c r e a t e d i t .

15. A few examples w i l l i l l u s t r a t e t h e s e r e s u l t s :

( i ) The C i v i l Code i s s i l e n t concerning t h e consequences

o f a breach of promise. The C o u r t s , t a k i n g a s t h e b a s i s

of t h e i r argument a r t i c l e 1382 o f t h e C i v i l Code, which
p r e s c r i b e s t h a t t h e a u t h o r of a t o r t must r e p a i r t h e
p r e j u d i c e caused, have d e r i v e d t h e r i g h t o f t h e v i c t i m
o f t h e breach *Lo be indemnified, provided t h e

p r e j u d i c e i s t h e d i r e c t consequence o f

-60-
 t h e f a u l t ( f a u t e ) committed by t h e a u t h o r o f t h e breach.
( C a s s . Req. 1 2 November 1901, D.P. 1902,146; Cass. C i v . ,
2 March 1926, D.H. 1926.286; Cass. C i v . , 3 J u l y 1944,
D. 1945. 2.671 and so on). Breach o f promise a g g r a v a t e d
by s e d u c t i o n i s c o n s i d e r e d by t h e C o u r t s a c i v i l o f f e n c e
e n t i t l i n g t h e v i c t i m t o pecuniary compensation f o r t h e
damage s u f f e r e d . The C o u r t s had a t f i r s t reasoned on
t h e b a s i s of a r t i c l e 1142 which o b l i g e s t h e c o n t r a c t i n g
p a r t y who f a i l s t o c a r r y out h i s o b l i g a t i o n t o pay
damages t o t h e o t h e r p a r t y , T h i s t h e o r y was abandoned,
a marriage engagement n o t b e i n g a " c o n t r a c t " .
( i i ) The C o u r t s have r e s t r i c t e d by i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t h e c a s e s of

n u l l i t y of a marriage. A r t i c l e 180 of t h e C i v i l Code,

accords the r i g h t t o the partner l e d i n t o e r r o r a s t o
t h e person whom he h a s married t o ask for annulment.
The Chambres-R&ni% o f t h e Cour de Cas_s_ation i n an
a l r e a d y o l d d e c i s i o n (24 A p r i l 1862, D.P. 1862,1.153)
have d e c l a r e d : " E r r o r concerning t h e p e r s o n , s u s c e p t i b l e
t o cause annulment o f t h e marriage, i s understood t o be
only e r r o r a s t o the p h y s i c a l o r c i v i l i d e n t i t y of t h e
marriage-partner , but not error r e l a t i n g t o h i s qualities. (f

Consequently " t h e husband CaniIot argue (when a s k i n g f o r

annulment) t h a t he L=gaaz&
-. t h e foriller iiiarriage and

subsequent d i v o r c e o f h i s wife'' (Court o f Appeal of

Bordeaux, 2 1 December 1954, D.l955,242. Compare a l s o
P a r i s , 1 2 June 1957, D.1957.571.)
( i i i ) The C o u r t s a l s o have widened t h e concept o f p u t a t i v e

marriage as compared t o t h e t e x t of a r t i c l e 201 of t h e

C i v i l Code by g i v i n g f o r i n s t a n c e t h e b e n e f i t d e r i v e d
from i t t o c h i l d r e n i s s u e d from a bigamous union (Cass.
C i v . , 5 January 1910, D.P, 1911.1338).

-61-
 They have rendered l e s s s t r i n g e n t t h e i n c a p a c i t y o f
t h e married woman, by a f f i r m i n g t h a t t h e husband g i v e s
a ! ' t a c i t mandate'' t o h i s wife for household e x p e n d i t u r e s
(Cass. Req. 1905, D , P , 1906.1.14.) T h e i r jurisprudence
i n t h i s domain has taken account of t h e e v o l u t i o n o f
customs i n t h e whole f i e l d o f a married woman's r i g h t s
and has c o n t r i b u t e d t o modern l e g i s l a t i o n e s t a b l i s h i n g
almost complete eQuality o f t h e wife with t h e husband.

(v) I n m a t t e r s o f d i v o r c e they have given a l a r g e i n t e r -

p r e t a t i o n t o a r t i c l e 232 of t h e C i v i l Code which
enumerazes " i n j u r e grave" a s a d i v o r c e c a u s e , s o t h a t
nowadays divorce can i n f a c t be o b t a i n e d by mutual
consent

I (vi) Absolute p r o p e r t y r i g h t s , a s s t a t e d i n a r t i c l e 5&

C i v i l Code ( p r o p e r t y i s t h e r i g h t t o b e n e f i t and t o
d i s p o s e of t h i n g s i n t h e most a b s o l u t e manner, provided
one does not make use of i t i n a way p r o h i b i t e d by laws
and regulations) , have been l i m i t e d by case l a w which
has introduced t h e concept o f 'labuse of r i g h t s " . (Cass.
Civ. ,4 December 1935, D O H . 1936.70; n o t e s on t h i s
sc3jec-k m a t t e r , R i p e r t D , P , 1907.1,385.)

(vii) I n m a t t e r s of l i f e insurance f o r i n s t a n c e , t h e c o u r t s
have recognised t h e v a l i d i t y o f such insurance c o n t r a c t s
f o r t h e b e n e f i t o f t h i r d persons b y a wide i n t e r p r e t a t i o n
o f a r t i c l e 1 1 2 1 o f t h e C i v i l Code which allows
s t i p u l a t i o n f o r t h e b e n e f i t of a t h i r d person " i f such
i s t h e c o n d i t i o n of a s t i p u l a t i o n one makes f o r oneself
'
o r of a donation one makes t o a n o t h e r " ; From t h i s
paragra2h t h e C o u r t s have d r a m t h e conclusion t h a t
"there exists a stipulation f o r the benefit of a third m y

in a life or damages insurance

which 'Lhe insured has taken out f o r the

-62-
 p r o f i t o f h i s f a m i l y , o r o f a t h i r d p a r t y or for t h e
b e n e f i t o f whom i t may concerneS' (Cass. C i v . , D.P.1889.
2.153) and t h a t t h e b e n e f i c i a r y has by such s t i p u l a t i o n
a c q u i r e d a r i g h t , which does n o t a t any moment belong t o
the s t i p u l a n t (Cass. C i v . , 1 6 J a n u a r y , 6 , 8 and 22
F e b r u a r y 1888, D.P. 1.938.1.77 and 193)e
(viii) S t a r t i n g from t h e p r o v i s i o n of t h e f i r s t paragraph
a r t i c l e 1384 which s t a t e s : "One i s r e s p o n s i b l e n o t only
for t h e p r e j u d i c e caused by o n e s e l f , b u t a l s o f o r t h e
damage caused by t h o s e for whom one i s r e s p o n s i b l e or by
t h i n g s under one' s g u a r d i a n s h i p 91'. t h e C o u r t s have
e s t a b l i s h e d t h e v e r y e l a b o r a t e t h e o r y o f t o r t s , which inay
be b e s t resumed by q u o t i n g Cass., Chambres Rgunies,
13 F e b r u a r y 1930, D.P, 1930.1.57, which d e c l a r e s : "The
presumption of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e f i r s t
paragraph o f a r t i c l e 1384 a g a i n s t t h e g u a r d i a n of an
inanimate t h i n g , which has caused darnage, can only be
r e f u t e d by p r o v i n g t h e e x i s t e n c e of c i r c u m s t a n c e s o u t of
o n e ' s c o n t r o l , or of an a c t o f God o r ol" an extraneous
cause n o t imputable t o t h e guardian; it i s not s u f f i c i e n t
for t h e guardian t o prove t h a t hc h a s committed no f a u l t
o r t h a t t h e cause o f t h e daniage hns remained unknoliun."
16. Thus by r c v e r s i n g t h e burden o f proof ( v h i c h , as t h e law was
o r i g i n a l l y d r a f t e d , should have remained on t h e v i c t i m ) t h e
C o u r t s have been a b l e t o t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t , without changing t h e
l a w , modern development o f communications m d modern i n d u s t r y ,
I t might be added t h n t t h e j u d i c i a l r u l c s developed on t h e b a s i s
of a r t i c l e 1 1 2 1 quoted above have been i n c o r p o r z t c d i n t h e l a w o f
13 July 1930 on I n s u r a n c e C o n t r a c t s which h a s now become
a r t i c l e 1983 of t h e C i v i l Code.
 J u d i c i a l t h e o r i e s on r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r t o r t s have a l s o
paved t h e way t o t h e Workmen’s Compensation Act of
9 A p r i l 1898.

_”
17. ‘!le may s t o p h e r e t h e a n a l y s i s o f v a r i o u s academic t h e o r i e s
and o f t h e i r p r a c t i c a l consequences. One might however
consult: R i p e r t 8c Boulanger, > Y

>e T r --
G de Pl_an_iol, P a r i s , 1956; Beudant, Cours un-- de

Droit c i v i l , ~2nde d . ? +1934, V o l . I; Aubry e t Rau, D r o i t c i v i l

; %

-ncAis, 7th ed. , by- E o Esmein and A. Ponsard, 1964;

B audry-L ac ant e r ie-Houc ques F ourc ade , . T r a i t Q tthC0-r i q u e et
, 2nd ed. , 1912 and t h e g e n e r a l
r e p e r t o r i e s of Dalloz and J u r i s - C l a s s e u r s C i v i l s .

-isles p;overningmodxrn I-bt-erpretation

18. The f o r e g o i n g l e n g t h y expos6 enables u s -to r e p l y more
s u c c i n c t l y t o t h e s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n s asked.

19. Nowadays French C o u r t s d i s t i n g u i s h t h r e e main hypotheses

0
a s r e g a r d s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e law. 1 The t e x t i s c l e a r
0 0
and unambiguous; 2 i t i s obscure or ambiguous; 3 it is
i n s u f f i c i e n t or s i l e n t .

20. If t h e t e x t i s-
c l e a r and unambiguous,
.-____. - ____.__
no c o n s u l t a t i o n of
or r a t h e r r e f e r e n c e t o t r a v a u x prGparat_o_Lr-e-_s_
is, in

i p l e admitted,
It ough
?in p r i n c i p l e , r e f e r e n c e may be made t o t h e .travaux
p r % p s u a t o i r & if and when a s t a t u t e i s i n need of
“ I n t e r p r e t a t i o n , t h e judge must a b s t a i n f r o m t h i s
r e f e r e n c e , when t h e meaning of t h e law a s d r a f t e d i s
n e i t h e r obscure nor ambiguous and consequently must be
held f o r c e r t a i n . ” (Cass. Civ. 22 BTovember 1932,
D O H , 1932.2)
T h i s confirms a l o n g s t a n d i n g and s t i l l valid- p r i n c i p l e .

-64-
21. T h i s t h e o r y h a s been supported by Prof, Henry C a p i t a n t i n

an a r t i c l e p u b l i s h e d under t h e t i t l e " L S i n t e r p r g t a t i o n de
\
l a loi d ' a p r e s l e s t r a v a u x p r & a r a t o i r e s f ' (D.H. 1935,
Chr. 77). According t o t h e l e a r n e d s c h o l a r , r e f e r e n c e t o
m q ' & > a r a t o i r _ e s o r p r e l i m i n a r y r e p o r t s h a s produced
v e r y poor r e s u l t s . He s t r o n g l y p r e f e r s t h e B r i t i s h
d o c t r i n e of s t r i c t t e x t u a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and would allow
r e c o u r s e t o t r a v a u x s-erp r/
- only when i t i s p o s s i b l e

t o f i n d t h e r e some i n d i c a t i o n concerning hypotheses n o t

e x p r e s s l y provided for b y t h e s t a t u t e . Otheriuise t h e
i n t e r p r e t e r h a s s t r i c t l y t o a b i d e by t h e t e x t which he
cannot amend under t h e p r e t e x t t h a t the. law does not ..

conform t o t h e expo& d ~ s A 4 o2r o t h e r p a r t s of the

m r gpar a t o i r s

22. I n a r e c e n t c a s e , however, ( T r i b u n a l des C o n f l i t s

22 November 1965, D.1966,195) t h e Commissaire--du

---I
:
:

Gouvernement e x p r e s s l y r e f e r r e d t o t h- ea -
of t h e r e l e v a n t s t a t u t e a l t h o u g h , according. t o h i s s t a t e m e n t s
the text is clear - and i t s apparent meaning d i c f e r e n t f r o m t h e
one r e s u l t i n g f r o m t h e s e m a u x p r g p a r a t o i r e s (page 198
U-- %-2LLz9
l a s t para.). The Court followed t h e opinion of t h e Commissaire
_.
~ ____L____ -
c7,u GouveSnement perhaps because he appears t o have belonged t o

t h e d r a f t i n g committee and i s t h e r e f o r e supposed t o IT-

LILowI t t h e
will of the l e g i s l a t o r t f . ( T h e Tribunal des-CqnPlits is the

h i g h e s t Court of F r a n c e . I t i s composed of members o f t h e COUP

/
de C a s s a t i o n and o f t h e C o n s e i l d ' E t a t . I t deals exclusively

w i t h c o n f l i c t s of j u r i s d i c t i o n between a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and
ordinary c o u r t s . If no m a j o r i t y i s found, t h e M i n i s t e r of
J u s t i c e , who t h e o r e t i c a l l y p r e s i d e s , h a s a c a s t i n g v o t e . )

*.5
.-

The Commissaire du Gouvernement does n o t i n s p i t e of h i s

titl-wpoint o f t h e government. H e i s
an o f f i c e r of t h e Court who e x p e s s e s a n e n t i r e l y
independent o p i n i o n upon t h e q u e s t i o n for d e c i s i o n .

-65-
23. May t h e C o u r t c o r r e c t d r a f t i n g errors o f a s t a t u t e ?
Case law i s h e s i t a n t on t h e s u b j e c t . Some d e c i s i o n s s t a t e
t h a t t h e judge must accept t h e t e x t a s i t stands; (Cass.
Crim. 11 Ziarch 1631, S i r e y 1831.1.147) . I n o t h e r c a s e s it

h a s been s a i d t h a t i n t h e absence of p a r l i a m e n t a r y
d i s c u s s i o n s on t h e s p e c i f i c p o i n t o f law, it would be
impossible t o say whether a d r a f t i n g e r r o r had been
committed, o r whether t h e c o r r e c t i o n would be adding
t o t h e law a p r o v i s i o n i t f a i l e d t o c o n t a i n . (Cass. C i v . ,
20 October 1891, S i r e y 1891.1.505)

24. I n c e r t a i n o t h e r d e c i s i o n $ t h e C o u r t s hage s t a t e d t h e -
accerding t o t h e i r opinion - c o r r e c t meaning of' tlie law,
such a s t h e l e g i s l a t o r intended i t t o b e , e s p e c i a l l y when
t h e t e x t c o n t a i n e d p m v i s i o n s obviously i n c o n t r a d i c t i o n
w i t h t h e Act as a whole. (Cass. Req., 11 May 1897, D.P.

1097.1.367; Cass. C r i m . , 14 December 1832, S i r e y 1833.

1.510; Cass. C r i m . , 7 J u l y 1854, D.P. 1855.1.266; Cass.
Req. 25 November 1665, D.P. 1866.1.100).

25. Other o p i n i o n s d i s t i n g u i s h between p e n a l s t a t u t e s ,

p r o h i b i t i v e p r o v i s i o n s , a c t s e s t a b l i s h i n g l a p s e of r i g h t s ,
laws concerning t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f v a r i o u s c o u r t s ,
r e t r o a c t i v e laws, f i s c a l laws.

26. P e n a l and f i s c a l s t a t u t e s as well a s i n g e n e r a l

p r o h i b i t i v e p r o v i s i o n s nave t o be s t r i c t l y i n t e r p r e t e d .
The Judge must n e i t h e r add nor d e t r a c t t o o r from them.

s c u r e o r -amb-i@-ous, t h e judge w i l l
attempt t o f i n d o u t t h e " t r u e w i l l of t h e l e g i s l a t o r " .

.. .

-66-
 (Cass. 11 May 1897, D e i 3 * 1897.1.367, already quoted above) e

The judge will at first proceed by "grammatical intergret-

tion" that is, he will h m e recourse to the usage of
the language and its syntax. fiegard should however
mainly be had to the technicel significance of the terms
used by the statute, If the result should not be
satisfactory, the judge 12rocceds by "logicel interpretation"
i.e., he will compnre the text to othcrs dealing with the

same subject matter; the more recent text will supercede

the older one; the judge may a l s o refer to the purgose
pursued by the statute. The statute mentioned in the
preamble of the obscure draft may be used to explain, but
not to restrict its meaning. The title given to the
statute is without authority at all for the puri2Ose of its
interpretation. An ancient stctute may h e l p L o explain
a more recent one or vice versa. An o l d established
usage cdopting a p. r i i c u l a r application of the statute
may a l s o be consulted; but a regulation pronulgated by the
Executive may not be relied upon for inter2retation of a
statute and is in no way binding on the Judiciary. (Cass.
Req, 23 May 1843). See however the new borderline drawn
between the law sild executive orders, vastly extending the
legislative and inteqretative power of the Government by
application of articlcs 34 and 37 of the 1958 Constitution.
It would go too far to discuss this matter here. The
case-law of the C O stitutionnel and the numerous
_y

comments on its awards by Professor Lgon Hamon, generally

published in D a l l o z , may be usefully consultcd on this
matter.
, ..
28. 1n.case of silence of the law, the judge by virtue of article 4
o f the Civil Code, must nevertheless give judgment.

-6 7-
I

I n penal c a s e s he must absolve b y v i r t u e of t h e p r i n c i p l e

po
-en
Iae-' leKe.qf Otherwise he may decide by
analogy.,He may by extending them, apply t h e p r i n c i p l e s

s t a t e d i n t h e S t a t u t e although they do not apply direc-tly

b u t only v i r t u a l l y t o t h e p o i n t a t i s s u e . Thus t h e Couq
,de C g s s a t a n (Cass.. C i v . , 9 June 1856, D,P. 1856.1.233)
h a s decided t h a t " g e n e r a l r u l e s c o n t a i n e d i n a law w i l l
also apply t o s p e c i f i c m a t t e r , when t h e r e i s p a r i t y of
motive and provided t h a t t h e s p e c i f i c law does n o t c o n t a i n
any e x p r e s s d e r o g a t i o n o f t h e g e n e r a l r u l e o r i s -not

i r r e c o n c i l a b l e with t h a t g e n e r a l r u l e o't

29, The judge may t h e r e f o r e proceed by analogy, unless t h e

s t a t u t e i n q u e s t i o n c o n t a i n s e x c e p t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n s which
always must be s t r i c t l y i n t e r p r e t e d ; he may also reason
,a c o n t r a r s , a r e a s o n i n g admitted only i f by s t a r t i n g from
t h e e x c e p t i o n , i t l e a d s back t o t h e g e n e r a l r u l e , and
s o on.

3O,, A s a l r e a d y s t a t e d t h e s e inethods a r e f o r b i d d e n a s f2r 2s

p e n a l s t a t u t e s 8 r e concerned. The on
S S @'i

(Cass, C r i m , , 22 December 1898, D,P. 1898,1.489) has s t a t e d

t h a t t h e judge cannot g e n e r a l i z e the terms o f t h e law by
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f a penal provision the s p e c i a l character
of which . r e s u l t s from i t s d r a f t i n g ; i n no c a s e may he
s u b s t i t u t e himself f o r t h e l e g i s l a t o r ; b u t i n another
d e c i s i o n a l r e a d y quoted (Cass. Req., 11 May 1897, D.P.
1897.1.367) t h e Supre.me Court added t h a t t h e judge may
a s c e r t a i n t h e purpose of t h e law and give it t h e meaning ~

i t was i n t e n d e d t o have., The judge may a l s o (Cass. C r i m . ,

8 March 1930, D,H. 1930,253) r e c t i f y by i n t e r p r e t a t i o n a
d r a f t i n g e r r o r lendiilg t o a penal s t a t u t e a meaning

-68-
 .'
.
obviously d i f f e r e n t from t h e one i t was i n t e n d e d t o have.

31. The p r e c e d i n g p a r a g r a p h s have, I t h i n k , l a r g e l y answered t h i s

question. I n p r a c ' t i c e t h e French judge w i l l n o t make u s e , if

he can p o s s i b l y avoid i t , of m a t e r i a l extraneous t o t h e s t a t u t e

itself , e s p e c i a l l y n o t t o t h e k a v a q x - p r h g q z t o i r e g , which a l l
t o o o f t e n m e misleading. French j u d g e s , l i k e t h e i r B r i t i s h
c o l l e a g u e s , are i n c l i n e d t o f e e l t h a t s t a t e m e n t s made b y one
o r s e v e r a l members of P a r l i a m e n t or even o f t h e E x e c u t i v e do
n o t n e c e s s a r i l y embod-y t h e i n t e n t i o n of t h e l e g i s l a t o r 8 s a
whole. Even t h e r e p o r t of t h e ? o m i t % des Q L s o f P a r l i a m e n t
i s i n no way b i n d i n g or d e c i s i v e , zlthougli, q u i t e o b v i o u s l y , i t
may b e c o n s u l t e d and even quoted i n s u p p o r t of t h e f i n d i n g s of
t h e Court or by t h e IvIinisG-r-+.-Public( r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e p u b l i c
i n t e r e s t ) t o s u s t a i n t h e o p i n i o n he d e s i r e s t h e Court t o e x p r e s s ,
But g e n e r a l l y such r e f e r e n c e s a r e seldom made and do n o t
o r d i n a r i1y t o o much weight. I n m y own e x p e r i e n c e , I
c amy/
remember o n l y two or t h r e e c a s e s where I found i t n e c e s s a r y and
useful t o consult the 'ravauxqrkparatoire_s_,

3'2. I am a l s o prepared t o say t h a t i n Prance a s i n England Courts

when t h e d r a f t i n g i s c l e a r , f e e l t h a t t h e y must g i v e e f f e c t
t o t h e words, even i f such s t r i c t r u l i n g may l e a d sometimes t o
untoward r e s u l t s . Yhen however s p e c i f i c s o c i a l o r economic
developments p r e v a i l , and under e x c e p t i o n a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h e y
have been l e d t o d i s r e g a r d by i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s p e c i f i c words
w r i t t e n i n t o t h e s t a t u t e , t h u s a d a p t i n g t h e law t o c o n d i t i o n s t h e
l e g i s l a t o r could not p o s s i b l y f o r e t e l l . They f o l l o w t h e n t h e
/teachings
o f the " H i s t o r i c a l School'' (Savigny and o t h e r s ) a c c o r d i n g t o

-69-
 which t h e law, once i t h a s been p u b l i s h e d , de t a c h e s
i t s e l f f r o m i t s o r i g i n a t o r s and t h e i r i n t e n t i o n s t o t a k e
i t s own c o u r s e a c c o r d i n g . t o t h e e v o l u t i o n of the s o c i a l
context.

3 3 . Lawyers apguing on t h e i n t e y p r e t a t i o n of t h e s t a t u t e i n
defence o f t h e i r c J i e n t s ' i n t e r e s t s , may appeal t o any
m a t e r i a l t h e y deem f i t : case l a w trav&u=r6paratoires9
academic w r i t i n g s opinio,ns of eminent j u r i s t s and so on.
French c i v i l procedure is "accusatory"; it l e a v e s t h e p a r t i e s
f r e e t o e s t a b l i s h t h e i r rights and t o prove them a s t h e y deem
a p p r o p r i a t e , the judge a c t i n g a s a k i n d o f umpire. He i s f r e e
however t o adopt t h e l e g a l grounds which he t h i n k s will s u s t a i n
h i s d e c i s i o n =and f i n a l l y t h e Cour u s g a t i o n w i l l < by- ,

s e v e r a l awards i n s i m i l a r c a s e s , e s t a b l i s h t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n
t h a t must p r e v a i l .

34. A v e r i t a b l e d i a l o g u e i s c o n s t a n t l y engaged between t h e

C o u r t s and academic w r i t e r s . T h e l a t t e r comment i n

p r o f e s s i o n a l p e r i o d i c a l s on s i g n i f i c a n t d e c i s i o n s , t r y
t o e s t a b l i s h t h e d o c t r i n e Followed 5 y t h e C o u r t s , t o
f i n d out, whether o r n o t t h e i r former c a s e law i s about t o
be abandoned and s o on, On t h e o t h c r hand, t h e C o u r t s ,
e s p e c i a l l y the Cour de C a s s a t i o n , pay g r e a t a t t e n t i o n t o t h e s e
academic w r i t i n g s and it happens q u i t e f r e q u e n t l y t h a t . t h e
r a p p o r t e u r of t h e Court r e f e r s t o t h e s e w r i t i n g s and even
quotes them e i t h e r t o accept t h e l e a r n e d a u t h o r ' s r e a s o n s or
t o r e f u t e them. The lower C o u r t s do n o t always f'olloinr b l i n d l y
the r u l i n g s of t h e ssatio2. Quite often
t h e y r e s i s t and t r y t o g2in a c c e p t a n c e for t h e i r own
interpretation of the law. Recently, in the

-70-
 matter of torts the C h a m l c l _ r - e _ s _ ~after
__I_ , 8 long
struggle during which the lower Courts opposed constantly
their interpretation to that of the Supreme Court,
have finally adopted the views prevailing in the majority
of the lower Courts, It seemed to me important t o
underline this, in order to show that in France judges are
quite free to admit for the interpretation of a statute
material extraneous to the latter,

E. Conclusio-q

35. In conclusion, I may say that French judges act and

react very similarly to their British colleagues in
similar situations with the proviso , however that
precedents have much less authority than they appear to
have in England. But even in our country "judge-made
law" is not unknown. Our methods, mainly because of tho
existence of the dt; Cassation with its regulatory
poliwr and of a vast body of codified lav1, are different;

the end result is the same: a reasonable adaptation of

the law to the ever changing needs of a society in constant
movement. Thus in this domain too, the similarity of
philosophy and method of thinking of our two nations is
apparent

-71-
 (Translated excerpt frqm a rvovg
b,yfessor G. Leibholg-qf --hZ

Fe-deral Constitutional C o u r d A-- - .

As regards the interpretation o f statutes in Item XVII of

the Law Commission's First Programme, I mny most usefully refer to
the principles that the court to.which I belong has developed for
the interpretation o f laws in general, in view 02- the fact that
these principles have prevailed in German decisions as a whole.
These decisions lay down -the following points:
What is decisive for .the interpretation o f a legislative
provision is the l'objectivisedl' will of the legislator, as obtained
. ,
from the text of the legislative provision and from the contextual
meaning in which it is placed. (see Collection of Decisions of the
Federal Constitutional Court le312;. 8, 307; 10,244;
*.
11,130 u
ses
. *

This aim of interpretation is served by textual (grammatical)

interpretation, by contextual (systematic) interpretation, by
interpretation directed to' the purpose of the legislation (teleological
and by interpretation by reference to the legislative material and
to the historical origin of the law (historical).
In order to ascertain the objective will of the legislator
all these methods of interpretation are permissible. They do not
I *

exclude but supplement one another (Collection of Decisions 11,130).

The subjective conception held by the organs involved in the
legislative process or by their individual members as to the meaning
of a provision has significance f o r its interpretation only in so far
as it confirms an interpretation reached by the already stated
principles or in so far as it removes doubts which by reference only
to these principles cannot be removed, (Collection o f Decisions 1,
127 9 312; 3 0 7 ; 10,244; 11,130 et) The legislative
material can only be employed in so far 8s it permits
-- ---a- ~~

(1) F o r more detailed treatment , particularly concerning the

interpretation of constitutional statutes, see Publication 20
o f the Association of German Teachers of Constitutional Law, with
8 comprehensive bibliography in n,4 at p . 54,,
-72-
 I '

. 'U a conclusion t o be r x i c h c d 2s to t h e P b j c c t or coiitcnt 01 tho

law. It must always be a s j C s s e d w i t h a c c r t a i n rzscrvc 2nd
g e n e r a l l y u s e d only by ;ray o f s u p p o r t . In i x r t i c u k r i t s use
m u s t not r c s u l t i n t h e conceptions o f t h c l a iv-jng org;ans baing

t r z a t c d a s equivalent t o t h c o b j e c t i v e c o n t e n t o f t h e law. In
any event tlic w i l l - of tho l e g i s l a t o r m n only be t a k e n i n t o nccour,t

i n t h e i n t e r p r z t s t i o n o f the law iii so f z r GS i t h a s rcc,:ivcd an

adequataly c l o a r c::pr;.saion i n tiiij 1avr i t s e l f ( C o i l c c t i o n o f
Decisions 11,13011 3 , 2 5 3 ) .
As understood by t h e F e d c r z l C o n s t i t u t i o n c l Court a 1 2 7 ~

caniiot be d e c l a r e d v o i d ; i;rl?cn i t i s possible t o i n t s r p r e t i t i n

accordance - d t h t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n ; i t i s n o t o n l y a q u e s t i o n of
t h e r e being a prcs.u;;?p-tion
that L! lair i s c o n s i s t e n t x i t h t h e
c o n s t i t u t i o n b::t t h a t t h e p r i n c i p l e ;iliich f i n d s e x p r e s s i o n i n thGt
przssuiq3t i o i i also r e q u i r e s cin i n t c r p r e t z t i o n f a v o u r i n g t h e c o i i s t i -

t u t i o n a l i t y o f la;;{ i n c z s e s o f dowbt ( C o l l e c t i o n of Decisioiis 2.32),

So f n r 2s t h e p u r p o s c 2nd t h e t e x t o f tliz :!an do not s t a n d i n t h c
\JGY, t h c c o u r t s n u s t givo pr;fcreiic;: t o t h a t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n vrhich
i s i n a c c o r d w i t h t h e "&sic Lav" ( C o l l e c t i o n o f Dccisions C3041)e
If t h e m a r c t n o d i f f m c n t p o s s i b l e irlcLnings i6li.ch lilay be
g i v e n t o n r r r l e , t h e n t h c onc i s t o bc prefcrr;.d i.rhl?'cli i s m o r e i n
a c c o r d n i t l i a m l u e judg-;clit o f thc constitution. (Collcction o f
Dccisions 8,,221). The sane p r i n c i p l e also a p p l i z s i f , by r m m s o f

a n i n t c r p r z t 2 t i o n i n conformity n i t h ths. coiistitL~,tioil, only such

maximmi p a r t o f t h o w i l l o f t h e l e g i s l a t o r w i l l Fz przscrvod z s 3
a c c o r d i x t o t h e c o m t i t u . t i o n , can bz prcservcd. (Collcction o f
Di.cisioiis 9,200).
1 n . t e r p r c t J t i o n i n conformity v i t l i t h c c o n s t i t u t i o n , hoi.icve3r,
f i n d s i t s limits, when t h z t e x t 2i1d fiiezliiq o f cl la-,{i s uiiequivocJ1.
( C o l l e c t i o n of Decisions 2 , 3 9 2 ) . Every i a t c r p r c t z t i o n iii conformity
n i t h the c o n s t i t u b t i o n f i i i d s i t s limits a t t h e p o i i i t a t i,-diicli t h e
t c x t and clearly r e c o g n i z a b l e w i l l of t h e 1 , Z i s l a t o r i r o u l d come i n t o
c o n f l i c t ( C o l i e c t i o n o f Decisions 18,111) e I€ ,?,n
intcrprcc;tion
i n a c c o r d a m ? r-rith t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n would r e s u l t i n t h e s u b s t i t u -
t i o n o f the l e g i s l a t i v e provision bjr another provision with a

d i f f t r e n t coiitcxt, t h i s voulG s t e p o v e r t h e bodndaries o f I c g a l i t y

-73-
and i n v o l v e a law-making p r o c e s s which belongs only t o the
l e g i s l a t o r ( C o l l e c t i o n o f D e c i s i o n s 2,406) I n any event such
an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n must i n no c i r c u m s t a n c e s f a i l t o g i v e e f f e c t t o
o r f a l s i f y t h e aim of t h e l e g i s l a t o r . In s e e k i n g t o r e a c h an
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n accordance with t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a t e x t which
i s c l e a r must n o t be given i n e f f e c t t h e o p p o s i t e meaning,
( C o l l e c t i o n of' D e c i s i o n s 8,34; 9,200).

I have given t h e d e c i s i v e p r o p o s i t i o n l a i d -down by t h e F e d e r a l

C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Court with r e f e r e n c e s t o t h e c a s e s , because t h e y

govern today t h e e n t i r e c a s e law and b r o a d l y speaking a r e a c c e p t e d
by l e g a l writers

. .

-74-
-.. I .
 A22ENDIX E.2 ( GEi3UhY )
-.e---- w w u_L

( T r a n s l a t e d exc,rpt from o b s e r v a t i o n s
by Professor I k r l I;.rciiz o f t h e
University o f iknich. )

There a r c i n Germany no sta'mtory rules aboat thc

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f s t a t u t e s and a l s o no p r o v i s i o n of t h c t y p e
o f A r t i c l e 1 o f t h e S?,iiss C i v i l Code which t e l l s t h e judge what
he has t o do when t h e s t a t u t e g i v e s no ansxer r e g g r d i q a q u e s t i o n
o f law t o be decided by him, The e n t i t l e m e n t o f t h e judgc t o

i n t e r p r e t the s t a t u t e s and t o f i l l i n f t 5 j ~ p ~$n

1 1Lhc atGttztcs and
thereby t o dcvclop t h e law i s recognised by customdry la67 and i s
never doubted. It i3 a l s o t h e nssuaption o f the s t 2 t u t e s d m l i n g
I

with procedurz f o r examplb A r t i c l e 137 o f t h e Gcrman S t a t u t e

govsrning t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n o f t h e Ccv.rt8, which concerns t h e
j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h e s o - c a l l e d "Grcat Sen3tc'' o f t h e Srqreme C o u r t .
This r-ads a s f o l l o w s : -
"A Senate which c o n s i d e r s a q u e s t i o n before it t o 33 o f
fundamental importance cai1 r c f c r the d e c i s i o n t o the ' G r i a t

Scnate' when i n i t s opinion t h e develo2mcnt o f t h e law o r

t h e a s s w a n c c o f c o n s i s t e n t l e g a l d e c i s i o n s so demands e

The p r i n c i p l e s accordin;; t o which t h c c o u r t s a c t i n thc

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e s t a t u t e s have f o r a long timc been devslopcd

i n Germany frou t h e s c i e n t i f i c study o f law. U? t o the p r e s e n t

time t h e tbeory of i n t e r p r z t a t i o n of Swigny hGs b c . n of g r e a t
influence. Sr?vignyls t h e o r y is ooiitaincd i n t h e f i r s t v o l u n o of

h i s work System
,- U*__/ ---
o f rdodern Roman
-_- L- ri 9 1340. Szvigny ,dis%lnguishcs
- A

f o u r elements in j u r i s t i c i n t G r p r c t a t i o a : t h e g r a m m t i c a l , l o g i c a l
h i s t o r i c a l and t h e s y s t e m a t i c . To e x p l a i n t h i s I must emphasize

t h a t t h e i n t e r p r o t a t i o n theory o f Savigny r z l a t e s t o t h e i n t e r -
p r e t a t i o n of t h s l e g a l works o f tho I@zantiLre E F i p r o r J u s t i i i i a n
,
. ..b . , - I A s me h z r c havi! t o d e a l mith
t e x t s which, coming fron t h e writings o f t h o c1,asaicA. Ronm
jurists, wwx put t o g e t h e r and drawn up almost 1300 jredrs ago and
Iilorcovcr i n il f o r e i g n languagG,., nancly L. t i n , . it i s easy t o
widerstand why in t h e i r i n t e r p r -e* t a t i o n t h e l i n g u i s t i c ( t h e
-75-
 -
g r a i - m a t i c a l ) and h i s t o r i c a l elemsilts wem o f p a r t i c u l m U" Q

importmce. Pie t e x t s rnust f i r s t be exsnined f r o n t h e p o i n t

o f view of t h c i r J l i n g u i s t i c nicsniig and tlicn with a view t o
d i s c o v c r i n g whz$ f a c t u a l circunst' .nces and what l e g a l conceptions
l a y i n o r i g i n behind them. ??lien S-vigny BurthGr drew attention
t o t h e l o g i c a l and s y s t e m a t i c clemcnts i n i n t c r g r c t s t i o n , tkis
r u s t e d oil h i s assumption t h a t t h c t c x t x t o be i n c o r p o r a t e d were
l o g i c a l l y f r e e f r o m c o n t r a d i c t i o n s and t h a t t h e Byzantine
lcgislator i n b r i n g i n g them t o g z t h c r vas concdriied t o p o v i d c r u l e s
-
which coul'd he welded t u g e t h e r a s fsr a s p o s s i b l c i n ~f gapless
syste1.i. The c o n t i n c n t d c o d i f i c a t i o n s already 3 x i s t i n g i n t h e
t i n e o f S n i g n y such as t h e A u s t r i a n Genersl c i v i l Code, P r u s s i a n
General Code and t h e Code C i v i l , had sirnilqr i n t e n t i o n s . In t h e
f u r t h z r c o 1 u s c o f t h c 1 9 t h ccntury contemporzry German l c g a l
s c i e n c e ,which was based on t h e h i s t o r i c a l s c h o o l -founded by
Szdigny ,regarded, a p c , r t from Fhc p h i l o s o ~ h i c ~ ~ l - h i s t o r i c ~ l
c l u c i d a t i o i i o f t h e t e x t s , t h e s y s t c m t i z a t i o n o f Vac l e g a l
* i

m a t e r i a l which they c o n t a i n a s i t s g r i m r y t a s k .
Tho t h e o r y o f intcrprctztion developed by Savigny for

understanding t h e Roman l e g s 1 s o u r c e s was after 19O;j c z m i e d

ovcr i n t h e i n t c r p r c t ' i t i o n of t h c G a r m n C i v i l Code and o t h e r
modern iayvs.' I n t h i s ' o f m u r s e tlia l i n g u i s t i c ( p s i m a t i c a l )
element t o o k a less proriinciit plccc cis rilodcrn laws i n t h i s
i
r e g a r d causc f e x d i f f i c u l t i e s . ' Undcr t h e " h i s t o r i c a l " c l c n e n t
one understands nowdays r c g a r d t o t h e h i s t o r i c z l o r i g i n o f
s t z t u t e s and o f t h e conceptions o f t h e p o p l e involved iii the
p r e p a r a t i a n of t h e laws and i n t h e i r passiiigosuch a s membcrs o f
.., p r c p a r n t o r y coriuiiissioiis t h o s e who d r a f t t h e l a n s and membcrs
of t h e Parliamentary bodies f i r t h c r m o r e the l o g i c a l and
s y s t e m a t i c elemeiltsplay ail imijorttlnt r o l e i n i n t c r p r b t a t i o n .
A f u r t h e r clement ncglcctGd by Savigny,namcly t h e t c l c o l o g i c a 1 , a l s o
comes i n t o play. Under t h i s concei3tioii o r i g i n a l l y was wider-
s t o o d only r c g a c i t o t h e purpose o f t h c l c g i s l a t o r a s m e r g i i i g
iii t h e law i t s e l f or i n t h e p r z p a r a t o r y work f o r tht? law, Today,
i

however, t h e concept i s understood i n a wider sense. The

-76-
t c l c o l o g i c c l i n t c r p r c t 2 , t i o n i s d i r a c t c d b o t h to. t h e p w p o s e of
the h i s t o r i c a l l e g i s l a t o r c? Ld t o t h e geilGrLll p v ~ p o s l ? so f thc

lcg:,l o r d L r , such CIS j u s t i c e , c e r t J i i ? t y o f t h e law, € r i e d o m o f the.

p c r s o i i and p r o t c c t i o n of confidcncd ia l e g a l r d l a t i o n s . I t i s s l s o
d i r e c t e d t o t h c m d c r l y i n g p r i n c i p l d s o f a s y s t c n o f rules such
a s e x i s t s i n t h c 1~11
of i n h e r i t x c z , and agziin t o thl: s o c i a l t.7sl;
or f u n c t i c n o f c c r t z i n 1 c g z l i n s t i t u . t i o n s , as well 2 s f i n a l l y t o
t h e s c a l e o f v-llucs which a r c contc.incd i n thil Fundamental R i g h t s
Scctioii o f t h e Boim 3 a s i c Laij. A d o u b t f u l oxprzsaion w i l l be
understood i n J s e n s s which agrccs w i t h tlicsc above-mcntioned
purposes, p r i n c i p l e s and s c z l e s o f vzlues. Wit11 r e g z r d t o

a g r e a c n t with t h e scctles o f v n l u c s of t h e & s i c LJIY we speak of

(1)
a " c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y conforming i n t e r p r c tc?tionIt Corit cmporxy
German l e g 3 1 scicncc,and even m o m s o t h e c o u r t s , s t r i v c l e s s t o
s c h i e v c l o g i c a l c o n s i s t c n c y and s y s t c m t i c c o m p k t c n e s s ( a s v n s
t h e cGse im t h c 1 9 t h . c o n t u r y ) t h c n t J achiGvd a " f - , c t u a l
a p p r o p r i z t s n c s s t t o f d e c i s i o n s , h z v i n g rz2arC-i b o t h t o the
conditioiis of l i f e t o bc r , p l a t c d . and t o conformity with t h e
legal s c a l e s of v a l u ~moulding t h e 1zg:il o r d e r 3 s a vJl?~lc. The
s i n g l e s t , : t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n will. n o t bd considerdd i n i s o b t i o n
b u t i n i t s r a l z t i o n s h i p t o o t h u r n o r m and t h e g e n c r z l l e g s 1
order o f which i t i s a p z r t .

carlicr history o f 3 s t z t u t c , v r i t h a view t o d i s c o v e r i n g t h e

conccptions and i n t e n t i o n s o f t h c l z g i s l s t o r i n accordi with t h e
i d e a s o f German l e g 2 1 s c i e n c e and o f t h e c o u r t s , i s oiily one o f
t h e d i f f c r c i i t methods which a r e used i n t h e i n t z r p r e k a t i o n o f
stJtutcs. The c o u r t s i n Gcrmany a r e n e i t h e r forbidd-en i n t h e
i n t z r p r c t a t i o n of a s t a t u t c t o drzw sup.Jort from i t s h i s t o r y
and t h e thGn opiniori o f t h e l e g i s l a t o r i n t h i s r c s p e c t nor bound
on t h e o t h c r hand by t h e r c s u l t s o f such ai historical intzrprc-
tation. The c o u r t s ai's T1bound'l t o a much g r e a t e r e x t c n t t o t h e
t e x t of t h e s t c i t u t c i t s e l f , thi:t i s t o s z y S ev;ry i n t c r p r c t , > t i o i i
(1) See BVeizPGT; 2 , 265
-77-
must remain w i t h i n t h e framework o f t h e t e x t and be c o n s i s t e n t
with t h e s e n s e of t h e words i n t h e t e x t . \'{here s e v e r a l meanings
(1)
of t h e t e x t e x i s t or where t h e r e a r e gaps i n t h e law, the
I

German judge u s e s s i m u l t a n e o u s l y t h e d i f f e r e n t methods o f i n t e r -

p r e t a t i o n d e s c r i b e d , th'at i s t o say, the h i s t o r i c a l , the l o g i c a l -
s y s t e m a t i c , and t h e t e l e o l o g i c a l - v a l u e j u d g i n g , and d e c i d e s , i f
t h e s e methods l e a d t o d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t s , g e n e r a l l y what he r e g a r d s
a c c o r d i n g t o h i s l e g a l c o n v i c t i o n a s " r i g h t " , t h a t i s t o s a y what
he t h i n k s t o b e r i g h t i n t h e circumstances. A f i x e d order

i n which t h e d i f f e r e n t methods o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n a r e t o b e a p p l i e d
h a s n o t u n t i l now been e s t a b l i s h e d - a l t h o u g h t h e r e have been p l e n t y
(2)
o f a t t e m p t s t o ' f i n d s l s h an o r d e r . One c a n s a y , however, t h a t
with i n c r e a s i n g l a p s e of t i m e s i n c e t h e o r i g i n of a s t a t u t e t h e
L

"historiczl'' element i n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n l o s e s S i g n i f i c a n c e and o t h e r

methods become more i m p o r t a n t , German l e g a l d e c i s i o n s have r e g a r d
also, i n t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and s t i l l more i n t h e f i l l i n g out and
development of a s t a t u t e ,to a profound change i n c o n d i t i o n s of l i f e .
\
I n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s a l s o i n f l u e n c e d by new leg?-1 t h e o r i e s or a
changed u s e o f language e

Concerning t h e q u e s t i o n a s t o t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e t o be g i v e n
i n i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t o t h e p r e l i m i n a r y ,work on a statu-Le t h e r e a r o s e
a t t h e end o f t h e l a s t c e n t u r y a prolonged l i t e r a r y d i s p u t e
which appears i n t h e p r e s e n t age a t l a s t t o h a m Bied down.
Savigny and o t h e r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of 1 9 t h c e n t u r y l e g a l theory
(3)
.-.
a s for example, Yindscheid and B i e r l i n g , r e g a r d e d it a s t h e
t a s k o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n t o d i s c o v e r t h e s s w i l l of the l e g i s l a t o r "
by h i s t o r i c a l - p h i l o l o g i c a l methods and t o g i v e e f f e c t t o t h i s
w i l l s o f a r a s the t e x t a l l o w s . The i n t e r p r e t e r o u g h t , such
was t h e t e a c h i n g of Savigny, t o p u t himself i n t h e p o s i t i o n of
On t h e problem of gaps i n t h e law c f . t h e most r e c e n t work by
C a n a r i s , D i e F e s t s t e l m von Lucken i-m G e s e t z , 1964,
--L-_L----a

Cf. on t h i s p o i n t my -re d_er

p. 257 e t . se&," E n g i s c h , -das j u r i s t i s c h e Denken,
3 r d E d i t i o n , 1964, p. 8 2
Cf, Savigny o p. 213; Yindscheid, Lehrbuch d e s
P a n d e k t e n r e c ~ ~ ~ f E d l t i o1879 n , , p. 20 g-qe ; Bierling,
-
Jurlstischenzipienlehre, volume 4, 1911, p . 230 e t seq.
-78-
l e g i s l a t o r and t o r e p e a t h i s thoughts. When t h i s s t a n d p o i n t

i s adopted t h e " h i s t o r i c a l " element p r e p o n d e r a t e s i n i n t e r -

pretation. I n accordance w i t h t h i s p o i n t o f view - the so-called
s u b j e c t i v e t h e o r y of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n - some of i t s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s
gave predominant s i g n i f i c a n c e t o t h e p r e l i m i n z r y work. For
example, B i e r l i n g s a i d : - "Knowledge o f t h e h i s t o r y o f t h e
o r i g i n o f a s t a t u t e i s t h e o u t s t a n d i n g means t o determine what
t h o s e who were c a l l e d upon t o make t h e law as a whole and p a r t i c u l a r
(1) .
words o f t h e l a w " . f r o m t h e h i s t o r y of t h e o r i g i n of
t h e s t a t u t e it appears t h a t t h o s e who took p a r t i n t h e
l e g i s l a t i o n c l e a r l y a s s o c i a t e d a p a r t i c u l a r meaning with a
p a r t i c u l a r e x p r e s s i o n t h e n t h i s meaning should p r e v a i l . As
a g a i n s t t h i s t h o s e who belonged t o t h e s o - c a l l e d o b j e c t i v e s c h o o l
o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , among o t h e r s Kohler, Nach, Binding and
(2)
Radbruch, drew a t t e n t i o n t o t h e f a c t t h a t a s t a t u t e once
promulgated and f r e e d from i t s o r i g i n a t o r develops i t s own
momentum; t h a t with 2 change i n c o n d i t i o n s o f l i f e , t o which
i t i s d i r e c t e d , and i n t h e whole l e g a l o r d e r , o f which i t i s a
p a r t , i t must w i t h t h e p r o g r e s s of l e g a l d-ecisions and t h e
i n s i g h t s o f l e g a l s c i e n c e be s e e n i n a new 2spec-t; t h a t as law
h m i n g e f f e c t t o d q i t can say more and d i f f c r e n t t h i n g s of
which i t s o r i g i n c l t o r was n o t zware and o f which with t h e o u t l o o k
o f h i s t i m e he c o u l d n o t bc aware. The f i n a l aim o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n
should t h e r e f o r e be n o t t h e d i s c o v e r y o f t h t w i l l and t h e o p i n i o n s
o f t h e h i s t o r i c a l l e g i s l a t o r b u t t h e r e a l i s a t i o n of t h e p r e v a i l i n g

s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h e statute B. F o r t h o s e who t a k e t h i s view t h e

p r e l i m i n a r y work of t h e s t a t u t e h a s n a t u r a l l y a l e s s e r value.
- -
(1) LOC. c i t . , p. 175.
(2) Cf. Kohler, aZe Volume 13, p. 1 e t . se&;
Wach, W d b u c h d e s deutschen Z i v i l p r o z e s s r z c- 9h t s 1885
---a-

Volume I , p e 2 e t seq.; Binding, Handbuch des S t r a f r e c h t s , 1885,

Volume I , p. 450 e t . seq. ; Kadbruch, RecktsEhLlosophie, 3 r d
--
U-

E d i t i o n , 1932, p . 110

-79-
 3;
-
U' ;

The " o b j e c t i v e " t h e o r y of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n can be regarded a s

(1)
t h e one which b o t h i n Germany and i n S w i t z e r l a n d is the
(2)
dominating t h e o r y . S u p p o r t e r s of t h e " s u b j e c t i v e " t h e o r y
c a n b e s e t a g a i n s t t h e o b j e c t i v i s t s i n s o f a r a s t h e former
would t a k e i n t o account n o t o n l y t h e w i l l of t h e o r i g i n a l
l e g i s l a t o r b u t a l s o what a p r e s e n t day l e g i s l a t o r would supposedly
l a y down i f he had t o r e g u l a t e t h e same q u e s t i o n . A compromise
(3)
view which t h e p r e s e n t w r i t e r s u p p o r t s sees t h e s t a t u t e both a s
a product o f t h e h i s t o r i c a l l e g i s l a t o r , a s an expression o f
w i l l and a l s o a s t h e l a y i n g down of a r u l e which once made h a s t o

j u s t i f y i t s e l f a f r e s h with t h e p r o g r e s s of t i m e and w i t h t h e change

of time and w i t h t h e change of i d e a s and so i s for i t s p a r t s u b j e c t
t o a change i n meaning. T h i s i n t e r m e d i a t e view r e g a r d s t h e

p r e l i m i n a r y work, and the h i s t o r y of the o r i g i n of t h e s t a t u t e , a s

a s i g n i f i c a n t a i d i n o r d e r t o understand t h e s t a t u t e a s an e x p r e s s i o n
of t h e w i l l of i t s o r i g i n a t o r ; i t does n o t s t o p a t t h i s p o i n t b u t
r e q u i r e s t h a t t h e p r e s e n t day s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h e s t a t u t e , w i t h t h e
h e l p a l s o o f o t h e r method-s, i n p a r t i c u l a r t h e t e l e o l o g i c a l , should
be determ'ined.
T h i s view i n t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e p r e s e n t w r i t e r best t a k e s
account of t h e f a c t t h a t c o u r t s immediately a f t e r t h e promulgation
o f t h e law t e n d f i r s t t o guide themselves by r e f e r e n c e t o

(I) Cf e f o r example , Germann, Probleme ---w d Methedep- d e r ----__I__

a n d u n g , 1965, p. 69 et-s g q , and p. 79 .et seq.

9

(2) I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e r e f e r e n c e i n n . 4 , p.81 c f , i n p a r t i c u l a r
Heck ,Gesetzesau-ileffun-g. -und -1n t E r e s s enJwi-sggX4e-n-
p a 1 L s e q , , 23, 59 e t s e 250 e t s x q , ; DTavriasky, Allgemeine
R e c h t s l e h r e , 2nd E d , ,*io 126 e t seq, who r e g a r d s a s
-mu

d e c i s i v e the h y p o t h e t i c a l w i l l of t h e p r e s e n t day l e g i s l a t o r
and i n t h a t way l e a v e s f a r behind the s u b j e c t i v e method ,;,
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ; Enneccerus-Nipperdey, Allgemginer- T e i l d e s
B n r g e r l i c h e n R e c m , 15th E d , 1959, p a r a . 54 I1 , where, however,
o b j e c t i v e elements such as for exa.mple t h e !'Value of Events"
a r e a l s o given c o n s i d e r a b l e weight, c f . &*--Lite9p a r a , 56 11;:.
(n. ( 2 ) , p.
78 above) p. 237 e t seq, ; E n g i s c h ,
( 2 ) , p a 78 above) p. 91 gt sea,

-80-
 .'
,U
the preliminary work whereas with an i n c r e a s i n g l a p s e of time
o t h e r p o i n t s of view such a s t h e b j c t i v e purpose -of t h e law,

t h e i n t r i n s i c f a c t u ' a l c o n s i s t e n c y of a norm with o t h e r norms and

w i t h t h e fundamental p r i n c i p l e s o f value of t h e whole l e g a l o r d e r

become more s i g n i f i c a n t , with t h e r e s u l t t h a t o t h e r methods of
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n g r a d u a l l y s u p p r e s s t h e " h i s t o r i c a l " method.
The German c o u r t s have never d e c l a r e d t h e i r a l l e g i a n c e t o
e i t h e r of t h e s e t h e o r i e s of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , b u t have i n f a c t used
a l l methods of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n and i n doing s o n o t i n f r e q u e n t l y
/ 7 1
\ I/
t a k e n account of change of meaning of t h e norm. They have
i n many c a s e s supported t h e i r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n by r e f e r e n c e t o t h e
h i s t o r y of t h e o r i g i n o f t h e s t a t u t e , i n o t h e r c a s e s on t h e o t h e r

hand t h e y have r e l i e d on a d i f f e r e n t p o i n t of view. ( 2 ) They have

k e p t f o r themselves a very wide freedom, But t h e f'urthermost
l i m i t of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s predominantly regarded a s t h e p o s s i b l e
(3)
meaning t o be e x t r a c t e d from t h e t e x t of t h e s t a t u t e i t s e l f .
What goes beyond t h i s i s n o t any l o n g e r " i n t e r p r e t a t i o n " b u t
development o f t h e l s w . I do n o t need h e r e t o go i n t o t h e
(4)
p r i n c i p l e s which t h e c o u r t s follow i n the l a t t e r r e s p e c t .
If a f t e r t h i s s h o r t survey about t h e p r e s e n t p o s i t i o n I may
e x p r e s s my p e r s o n a l o p i n i o n i t i s t h a t t h e German l e g i s l a t o r
h a s been r i g h t n o t t o l a y down c o d i f y i n g rules f o r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n ;
s i n c e having r e g a r d t o t h e many p o i n t s of view which can be t a k e n - i n
thc i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f sta,utes ~
any attempt t o f i x t h e r u l e s o f
iil-hepi2petation id a rigid form b r i n g s t h e danger t h a t t h e c o u r t s
will c o n s i d e r themselves bound i n a p a r t i c u l a r way,and t h e y w i l l
t h e r e f o r e be d e p r i v e d o f the n e c e s s a r y freedoiii i n developing t h e
law, i n p a r t i c u l a r a s f a r as a d a p t a t i o n of s t a t u t o r y r u l e s t o a
change i n c o n d i t i o n s of l i f e and t o t h e r e s t of t h e l e g a l o r d e r i s
---
(1) See my kt-,hohnlehre_, l m 9p. 261 e t secr.
( 2 ) See my Iv!ethodenJ&e, .-
l o c ,-c-i-t* p. 237 &sea,.
( 3 ) Cf. Heck, l o c , c i t . (a. 2 : - 9 0 8 C ) 9 p. 33; my Nethodenlehre,
l o c . c i t . , p . 243 e t s e q , ; E n g i s c h , l o c . c i t ? ' m t m ~ ~ 1 4 6 .
(4) C f . on t h i s p o i n t my AQethodenlehG, p. 273
-81-
 c
J i
-,

w 0

concerned. If i t were d e c i d e d t o remove t h e e x i s t i n g ban i n

Great B r i t a i n on t h e use o f p r e l i m i n a r y work o f a s t a t u t e t h e n i n
my o p i n i o n t h i s could b e s t b e brought about by 2 provision i n
v e r y broad terms s a y i n g more o r l e s s t h a t t h e c o u r t s a r e a u t h o r i s e d
i n t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of s t a t u t e s t o use a l l a i d s and methods which
f u r t h e r t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g of t h e s t a t u t e s , The more d e t a i l e d
c a r r y i n g o u t ( t h e c o n c r e t i z a t i o n ) o f such a p r o v i s i o n would then
be l e f t for t h e c o u r t s .
With r e g a r d t o t h e q u e s t i o n whether the.remova1 o f such a ban

on t h e u s e of p r e l i m i n a r y work would p u t lawyers e s p e c i a l l y i n

s m a l l e r towns a t a d i s a d v a n t a g e , a s t h e y might have d i f f i c u l t y i n
o b t a i n i n g a c c e s s t o t h i s p r e l i m i n a r y w o r k , I may s z y t h a t t h e s e
d o u b t s do n o t a r i s e i n Germany. F i r s t i n s t a n c e c o u r t s t o which
lawyers i n small towns a r e admitted do n o t concern themselves i n
g e n e r a l with d i f f i c u l t and d o u b t f u l q u e s t i o n s o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n Of

s t a t u t e s b u t f o l l o w t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n which the s t a t u t e s have been

given i n t h e l e g a l d e c i s i o n s o f t h e h i g h e s t c o u r t s o r i n t h e o p i n i o n s
o f t h e w r i t e r s o f t h e commentaries, The c o u r t s of h i g h e r i n s t a n c e
and lawyers admitted t h e r e t o hzve on t h e o t h e r hand i n g e n e r a l no
d i f f i c u l t y i n o b t a i n i n g t h e p r e l i m i n a r y work of s t a t u t e s when t h e y
come i n t o q u e s t i o n . The p r e l i m i n a r y work of t h e German C i v i l Code i s
p u b l i s h e d i n f i v e comprehensive volumes; t h e s c volumes can be found
i n every l a r g e l e g a l l i b r a r y . and every l a w y e r can get them for
himself. The p r e l i m i n a r y work for o t h e r laws, t h e ill^, o f f i c i a l

e x p l a n a t i o n s , proposed amendments and d e c i s i o n s o f P a r l i a m e n t a r y

commissions a r e c o n t a i n e d i n t h e p r i n t e d documents o f P a r l i a m e n t
( f o r m e r l y t h e R e i c h s t a g , today t h e Bundestag) o r o f t h e P a r l i a m e n s o f
t h e Lklnder, and t h e s e a l s o a r e w a i l a b l e i n l a r g e l i b r a r i e s . A s f a r as

t h e m i s g i v i n g i s concerned t h a t t h e layman cannot make much of t h i s

p r e l i m i n a r y work, t h i s i s a m a t t e r which i s b e i n g gone i n t o i n d e t a i l
(1)
by Bierling. Modern laws a r e f o r t h e most p a r t drawn up i n l e g a l
. -
t e c h n i c a l language and assume much i n many l e g a l t e x t s
--
(1) LO~.- (Footnote 4) , p. 264 &G,-s_e_s,
-82-

!
 1

, k.J
YJhiCh t h e 1ayma.i in g e n e r a l cannot understand-. I n any e v e n t ,
:-:hetever a i d s f o r t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of laws a r e brought i n t o
play t h e layman i n g e n e r a l cannot completely u n d e r s t a n d t h e laws
without legal a d v i c e . I n t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of laws t h e p r e v i o u s
Gecisions o f t h e c o u r t s play a major r o l e a p a r t f r o m academic
opinion. These d e c i s i o n s a r e j u s t as d i f f i c u l t f o r t h e layman t o
::o;rsult as t h e p r e i i m i n a r y work o f s t a t u t e s .
-84-
Supreme C o u r t , i s riot bound by what h a s been s a i d d u r i n g t h e
l e g l s l s t i v e procedure o n l y .by -the s t a t u t e i t s e l f
Under such c i r c u m s t a n c e s I have g r e a t d i f f i c u l t y ir,
u n d e r s t a n d i n g how we could manage without t h e r i g h t t o r e f e r Lo
t h e 1egi.slatLve h i s t o r y a s an a i d t o s t a t u t o r y i n t e r p e t a t i o n , The

l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y i s as i m p o r t a n t a s t h e c a s e s t o our c o u r t s and
our lawyers i n g e n e r a l . ''e have no experience of any o t h e r System.
However, t h e r e is mush c r i t i c i s m of t h e f a c t t h a t our l e g i s -
l a t o r s now and t h e n ha\-e l e f t important r u l e s which should have
been i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t h e t e x t o f t h e s t a t u t e t o b e a s c e r t a i n e d b y
r e f e r e n c e t o t h e comments made on the s t a t u t e . I n my o p i n i o n t h i s
c r i t i c i s m i s justifiec? t o a great e x t e n t , but not a l t o g e t h e r . Such
2- c o u r s e i s s o n e t i x e s j u s t i f i a b l e , for example when t h e comments
merely complete t h e s t a t u t e w i t h i l l u s t r a t i o n s o f how i t i s t o
a p p l y i n c e r t a i n c a s e s , if such a completion i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h

t h ? s p i r i t of t h e s t a t u t e . i remember, however, for example, t h a t

I r z i s e d strorig o b j e c t i o n s on a c e r t a i n occasion many y e a r s ago,

-;le had a ease bef0i-C t h e c o u r t , and I c o n s i d e r c d t h e p o s s i b i l i t y
o r a p p l y i n g t o t h e ce,e 8 c e r t a i n r u l e i n an Ret of 1930, t h e t e x t ,
o f whiqh i;?dicZ.tea no e x c e p t i o n s I WEIS, however i7aJLher unhappy
over t h e r c s c l t of such an a p p l i c a t i o n . F o r t u n a t e l y I checked w i t h
t h e l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y of t h c Act t o f i n d o u t t h z L t t h e committee
t h a t had worked oui; thi: d - r a f t had found i t i i e c e s s m y t o make -an
e x c e p t i o n f o r jcst s1~~1-1
a case; b u t i t a l s o appeared t h a t t h i s
e x c e p t i o n was so r e a s o n a b l e as t o be c o n s i d e r e d s e l f - e v i d e n t ,and
n o t nccessa-y t o exppess i n t h e t e x t of t h e Act, a c o u r s e t o which
t h e r e mas no o b j e c t i o r i i n the f i n a l l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y o f t h e Act.
1 s t i l l t h i n k t h a t t h i s was a l i t t l e t o o b o l d of t h e l e g i s l a t o r s .
I n ord.er t o 3 e q u i t e c l e a r I would l i k e t o add, t h a t I do n o t
r e c a l l having r e a d or h e a r d o f any statement t o t h e e f f e c t t h a t we
should chal?-ge OUT system. 'Fie t h i n k t h a t our system i s a good one
. -
and a n i n d i s p e n s a b l e ' o n e , b u t t h a t even 8. good system might bc
abused

-85-
impression i s , ho:?ever, t h e s c n i s t d c a s d o riot h a p p c n n o r 2 o f t e n i ; i t i i
 A strong argument in favour of admitting the use of
legislative history might be found in the.need for uniform
interpretation of the enactments based on internationa1,agreements.
The meaning of a certain expression in a convention or a uniform
law is very often impossible to ascertain without access to the
preparatory documents. The use by judges of such legislative
material will secure uniformity in the application of the inter-
national agreement . I i ]

-88-
 The m i n tliene of d i s c u s s i o n zppearcd f o r c? long p c r i o d
in the l g t h c e n t u r y t3 bc whcthdr i n t z r p r c t a t i 3 n should be
o b j e c t i v l : o r s u b j c c t i v z , t h e f o r n c r givin: a b s o l u t e prLd9ninzncc
t o t h e l i t , > r a l neaning o f t h e t e x t , ths latter e n d e x m u r i n g t o

i t i e s t o be g i v e n t o d i f f 2 r c n t ? i d s t o i n t x p r d t c t i o r i , t h e r e
being g c n s r a l a 2 r a a e n - t t h a t 2bsolutc p r i o r i t y must bo g i v c n t o
tho e x a c t l i n g u i s t i c and l o g i c a l i n t c r p r e t z t i o n a f t h e tt;-t;
3nly - 2s i s t o o Lreyuontly t h e case -- vdien t h c t c x t w s not
absolutely c l e a r would t h e secondary z i d s t o i n t c r p r c ? t J t i o n be

g i v e n t o tlicsc secondmy a i d s ? but roughly s9eaking t h e y can

be l i s t e d a s follows:

1. The analogy f r o n c s t a b l i . s h e d i i i t e r p r - t z t i o n o f s i i - i i l a r t e x t s
( s o m t i n c s d c s c r i b e d a s t h e colicrencc o f 1 c ; i s l a t i o n ) ;
2. The l e g i s l a t o r ' s n o t i v e s i n t h s w'dcst s e n s e c c w r i n g 311
o f f i c i a l p r c p a r z t i o n s b e - z i n g an t h e d r a f t i w o f t h e t e x t .
In t h ? c o n t c x t i t z i g h t be u s e f u l t o d c s c r i b c t h z norrml
coursc o f illorc i q p r t a n t l d g i s l z t i o n i n D e n x r k .
\'hen a new d cpa rt u r e i n l o g i s l a t i o n CO n t cap1::t c d i t
i s u s u a l t o s e t up a s e l e c t c o m i t - t e c o f e x p e r t s who zx'aiilic
thc. s u b j e c t 1:lattGr and u s u z l l y dr2:f-t tlic proposed l e Z i s l a t i D n

i n collaborc3tiqJn with t h c Ls7.-~

-
~ ~ i ocf tih e i d i n i s t r y o f
0"".
Justice. The f u n c t i o n o f t h i s lat'ccr body i s l c r g l y conp2r-
LI t i v e and t e c h n i c z l , The r e p o r t and t h e t c x t a r e

oil by t h e o f f i c i a l s noncdmed. I n tlic c o u r s ~ ?o f t h e i r c x m -

i n z t i o n t h e opinioiis o f o r g a n i s a t i o n s r u p r c s e n t i n g t h c

-39-
 asked t o s i v e an o p i i i i o l i . The conclusion or" t h i s procedure
i s t h e f i n a l t e x t t o be subnit-ked t o P z r l i x n e n t ,

t n e s e alAiendiicnts w i l l hz-vi t h 3 sz1x s t z t u s a s t h c c x p l a i s t o r y

n o t e s to t h e o r i d i n s 1 t c x t .

a i d s t o intsrpr;tin<; the t e x t .
3. Thi. h i s t o r y o f l c g i s l a t i g n e s p e c i z l l y l o z i s l z t i 3 n nliich

further

B t y p i c 2 1 2 x m ~ l em s quoted by t h e grand o l d nan o f

Daznish juris:rudeiicc A D S , Orsted i n t h c m r l y 1 9 t h c m t u r y .

1c;n inopemtivc m d i n a way which would r,lal;e i t o p c r a t i v c ,

g m f o r c n c c imst be given t o t h z l a t t e r s e n s e . Eut i n t n i s
-90-
 concept l'tlie nclturc of t h i n g s " l i e s t: g r e a t d e a l norc vfhich
esca_nes p r c c i a c d c f i n i t i o i i , b2.t which i n v o l v e s lcgcll t r z -
s ! i t i o n , tile s o c i a l o r d e r , c t c ,
5. B l s o t h c opiiii(3ns of writ z r s
I 011- j u r i s p r u d m c c 'i p a r t i c - -
l z r l g Luiivzrsity profclsorsg czn b c 9 ZnCi ;trc frLywnJG1.y
ailgucd ~d =ids t d intz-pctation.
I n t h e fo1L.owiiig I s h z l l a n l y d e a l V J i t Z t h e second 2oint,which I
c
- I

u n d e r s t a n d i s o f / i n t c r c s t t o t h e n o r i r o f t h e LZVJ C ~ Li s s i o n .
particular
flrgwxnts hased on t h e l l w i l l o f t h c l e g i s l a t o r " do n o t
a p p e a r t o h a m been co;iasLonp r a c t i c e i n t h e c o u t s up t o thc €irst
V o r l d Thr, a t l c a a t i n s o f a x a s t h i s can bc ascertained f r o n cases

t h a t t h i s p r a c t i c c has bcdn growiag, n o t l e a s t a s a r c s c l t of t h e

i n c r z z s i n g volmic o f 1GgiglDtion of a c o n p l i c a t e d technic::l and
ccanonic i l a t u r c . It i s , t h c r c f o r d 9 l o g i c a l t o conclude t h a t
attention i s n o r 2 l i k c l y t o bi. Given t o t h e t l m t i v c s S so' f n c ~ i
l e g i s l a t i m r z t h c r t h s n t o t h e jpLli1-iinari.zs o f earlier locis-
l c t i o n whcrc t h c h i s t u r i c a l background i s 1101~:c l i f f i c u l t to
eva l u z t e .
It would, howevcr, be a n e x a g c p x t i o n t o szy t h a t t h e c o u r t s
will c o n s i d e r t h e n s e l v e s bouxd t o f o l l o w L?n i n t d r p r c t a t i o n s o l c l y
based on __
trc7vau.x
__ pr6parsto.i.iTs.
- - O n t h o o t h e r hand t h c r e i s n o t h i n g
which will b a r t h e z p p l i c z t i o n o f sucli a i d s t o i n t z r p r c t z t i o n i n
t h e d i s c r c t i o n o f t h e Court
iin i n t c r e s t i n g case decided t h e E;: st 2 rii P.::
ov i n c i
d
Court i n 1929. The i s s u e was whether t h e r e c d i p t f o r n o t o r c::r
t a x m s t be p h y s i c - ? l l y rrcscnt i n t h c c a r i t s c l f . It vas q u i t e
clc.,~,,rf r o n t h e procecdings i n P - r l i m e n t t h a t t h i s had becn t h e
legislators1 intcntion. The c o u r t f o u n d t h z t t h i s was LiGlily
u n p r a c t i c a l and was n o t i n f a c t ObsLrvcd and c o n s e q u m t l y i n t o r -
p r c t e d t h e r..l e v a n t p r o v i s i 3 n t o m s n t h a t t h c r c c s i p t s h o u l d

-91-
 C
In t h e p r z c t i c c o f 1 2 thd
~ a r i l a b i l i t y o f n a t z r i a l docs
n o t a p p e a r t o hzvc p r L s c n t c d any problcn e.g. t o provinci<?l
l ~ y ~ y c r s .It i s t r u e that t h e i : ~ ~ t ~ r i w, zi l l n3t be on hznd a t
cvcry sm11 town, 'aut if 2 major q u e s t i o n o f i n t z r p r c ' t 2 t i o n i s

cnn be foun:, i n t h e p z r l i m c n t c r y l i b r z r yb whcm on th? f i l c o f t h e

A c t concdrncd t h e c o u p l c t e r i z t c r i a l vi11 havi: bden c o l l c c t c d
i n c l u d i n g all t h a t hag be-n m i d i n thc public sc;sions o f P r L
liatncnt on the 1-iatter,
 APPEiXDIX 0 . 2 (DENNlZ

-
(ExcerLt froig. o b s e r v a t i o n s
I--- n___ 2
Er. ye N ,,-Madsen)
--
(Legal .Adv-iser t o J-heALni- o f J u s t i c e e Denmark)

I may f i r s t mention t h a t i n Denmark we have no r u l e s for t h e

i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of s t a t u t e s o I n f a c t , our c o u r t s a r e i n a v e r y
u n r e s t r i c t e d p o s i t i o n a s regards interpreta.tion.
I n p r a c t i c e c e r t a i n k i n d s of i n a t e r i a l a r e taken e s p e c i a l l y
i n t o account by t h e judges when i n t e r p r e t i n g s t a t u t e s .
I n t h e f i r s t p l a c e t h e s o - c a l l e d "explanatory- statements" t o
t h e B i l l s should b e mentioned i n t h i s r e s p e c t , These m e g e n e r a l
statements - a s t o t h e background and t h e purgose of t h e B i l l -
a s w e l l a s comments upon t h e v a r i o u s a r t i c l e s o f t h e B i l l .
The s t a t e m e n t s a r e worked out i n t h e M i n i s t r y which i n t r o d u c e s the
B i l l i n Parliament.

Secondly t h e speech made by t h e M i n i s t e r i n i n t r o d u c i n g t h e

B i l l a s w e l l a s t h e p a r l i a m e n t a r y d e b a t e s i n g e n e r a l are a f r e q u e n t l y

used source of inforniation. (The B i l l s t h e e,xplanatory s t a t e m e n t s ,

the i n t r o d u c t o r y speech a s w e l l as t h e d e b a t e s a r e p u b l i s h e d i n

" F o l k e t i n g e t s f o r h a n d l i n g e r " ) ,.
F i n a l l y u s e a s t r a v a u x pr$pa_r_at,oires i s o f t e n made o f t h e
r e p o r t s made b y s p e c i a l commissions, appointed a h 0 2 by t h e
d i f f e r e n t M i n i s t r i e s i n o r d e r t o s t u d y and make recommendations
r e g a r d i n g an a r e a where new l e g i s l a t i o n may be needed.
I mentioned t h i s i n o r d e r t o g i v e t h e background o f t h e

c i r c u l a r on e x p l a n a t o r y s t a t e m e n t s t o B i l l s ( s e e below).
The c i r c u l a r h a s been worked out i n co-operation between t h e
Prime M i n i s t e r ' s o f f i c e and t h e M i n i s t r y o f J u s t i c e .
The aim of t h e c i r c u l a r i s n o t i n any way t o a l t e r t h e r u l e
of f r e e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n which e x i s t s i n p r a c t i c e a t p r e s e n t . Neither
i s our primary aim t o provide more e x h a u s t i v e i n t e r p r e t a t i v e
material f o r the courts.

-94-
 The purpose o f t h e c i r c u l a r i s p r i r l s r i l y t o sect 3 fLesirc:

i n f o r n a t i o n as t o t h e f i n a n c i a l and ad.ninistrztive consGqucnccs o f

new s t a t u t c s as w e l l 3s t o the baclcpound x t c r i a l o f the B i l l ,
e *g. s t a t i s t i c a l inforncition ancl s-i;atei.icnts cadc by c t h e r a u t h o r -
i t i e s o r p r i v i t e o r z a n i z a t i o n s o r c x p c r t s d u r i n g t h c prc!pzration o f
the B i l l . - In this c o i i w c t i o n I n i s h t o d m m a t t c n t i o i z t o ss 2 , 3
and 5 o f t h e c i r c u l z r .
We d i d honevcy a t t h e sane t i n e t a k c t h e o s p o r t u n i t y t o g i v e

t h n t such s t - t e a e n t s should s e r v e t l w air2 o f ziking thc! w n t c n t s o f

t h e B i l l n o r L ccsily undcrst;ni!c:ble f o r rxi13c'rs o f P a r l i a n e n t and
the i u b l i c LIS well as Civing thcL-1 i n f o r i m t i o n r , z i ; r d i r q thz
bclckgroun6 and gciiercil scqucncc o f e v e n t s conczrning t h e B i l l .

I t is f u r t h o r nentioned t h a t due account should be taken .if t h e

f a c t t h a t t h e s t s t c m m t s czii be expectce. t o bc a guiclc t o t h e
a u t h o r i k i c s which a m going t a a d n i i i i s t c z t h e s t 3 t u t c , aiid t o
the courts.

\
-95-
 4

, 'U

It i s rccoixlcndcd t h z t t h e d.irGctiGns s s t out b c l i w bi.

follow24 iii thc: p r L j x r z t i o n of i.xplanatory st::ti.mnts acco
ing B i l l s .
1. (1) The exi3lanatgry StZtiiiJileilt acto

bc s o dr:?ftcC. CIS tl.j mi3iifjj7 fsr t h e a b d r s of i)zrl-iai;i;.nt

and tlic p u b l i c , t h c subject- z a t - k c r o f t h e B i l l and pr3vid.e

an adequate b a s i s for evaluating t h c rcasons u n d e r l y i n g the
Bill and i t s expected e f i c c t s .
(2) Ii1 tlis p r c p a r a t i o n o f thc c x p l a n z t o r y stc?tc:ficnt3ccowit

should be taken of t h e fact; t h a t i t is l i l c c l y t o bc a zuidc

to t h c a u t h o r i t i c s vdqich S;Ii11 fld::iinistcr t h e Act o r CO-

ogcr.ztz i n i t s n d : i i n i s t r s t i a n , and to t h e courts.

2, (1) The c x p l m a t o r y s t a t c x e n t should contGin a n c s t i m t c o f
t h s f i n a n c i a l consdquences o f t h e Act i n th: f i s c 2 1 yczr i n
which it wilI C..I:X i n t o farc;l; 3s wc11 3::; i n t n c n e x t fo1loo;-
I .

ing f i s c a l ye2rs.
(2) I:.. s o f z r 2s p s s i b l e , the cxplsiiatary str?tc;.i:ieiit should
also c a n t - i n an cstii:ztc o f zny f i n z n c i a l conscqucnccs o f
tho Ell t o th;. local a u t h o r i t i e s ,

(1) The e x p l a n a t o r y s t ~ t c n e n ts h o u l d , a s far a s ? o s s i b l i ; . ,

c o n t a i n a n c a t i a a t i ' o f tlic conscqucnc2s o f t l w B i l l Poi-
Govcrncicnt adciinistrctio.1, n o t a b l y vhGthLr i t w i l l be
. ncccssary t o e s t z b l i s l l i1c\Tl a c b i n i s t r s t i v c badi,c ax- l - : r z e l y
extend e x i s t i r g ones. 1 1 t h a t c o s e , a n e s t i ; i a t c should bc
givcn o f tile expi'ctcd a d d i t i o n a l expenditure 011 adainistrltion,

-inter 2n persomlcl and pr xisc:s

(2)1 I n s o f z r Cis ~ ~ s a i b l can
, Lstil:;?tL should also bs given
o f t h c a d z i n i s t r z t i v c consGqucnccs o € tlic Ei3-1 t o 1 o c : l
 such a d n i n i s t r a t i v ; changes w i l l involve expenditure t o
t h e Zxchcquzr, t h e n , i f t h e m o u n t ~f such e x p e n d i t u r e i s

a l r e a d y capzblc of being e s t i n a t c c ! , sepzr.?.tt i n f o r a a t i o n

. should be given l i a x o f ,

( 3 ) If t h e Bill i s suppo,cd t o r b s t r i c t or c x t m d t h e
demnds nadc on tra?:e and i n d u s t r y or p i v a t 2 i n d i v i d u a l s
in c o n n c c t i 3 n with t h e z d n i n i s t r c t i o n of t h e l e g i s l a t i o n
t

concorned, a d e t z i l c d a c c o m t should be g i v c n thereof ill the

cxi-dzna t ory B tc',tcncnt .
4. If d u r i q t h e r c a d i w o f a Bill l a i d bcford P : i r l i a n z n t an
anenduent i s r-loved by t h e Govermient, i n f o r n a t i o n o f t h e n a t u r e

r c f e r r e d t o i n s e c t i o n s 2 and 3 s h m l d be g i v e n i n coniiection
ther e with.
5. (1) I f , a s a b a s i s f o r thc: B i l l ? i n v e s t i g a t i o n s have beon
imde, L n t c r alia e x m i n a t i o n of a 2 n i n i s t r n t i v e p r a c t i c e l
- A

s t c t i s t i c a l a n a l y s e s 9econornic c a l c u l . i t i o n s etc. , that arc

relevant ia e v a l u a t i n g t h e m a s o n s u n d e r l y i n g t h e B i l l and
i t s e f f e c t s , an account should be s i v a n o f t h e i n v L s t i g s t i 3 n s
i n t h e c x p l a n z t o r y s t z t e n e n t o r i n 311 aniie:r thereto.
(2) The e x p l a n a t o r y s t a t e n c n t s h j u l d i n d i c n t e t h e a u t h o r -

i t i e s , organisations, c t c , i7fhich h c v i subziittcd o p i n i o n s

.-
in t h e prci2c:ratian o f t h e L c t . ',,li~rc such o p i n i o n s arc o f
p a r t i c u l a r i;lportancc f a r evz1uatin.g t h c B i l l , t h e y should

non-ialljj be i n c l u d e d as a11 anilex t o t h e B i l l . Ia czsc the

B i l l i s based on a r c p o r t subiiit-tcd by a c a l u i t G e e or a
c o i x d s s i a n , t h c r c p o r t should b o coilillunicnted t o P r l i a n c n t

i n a n m b c r o f 250 c o p i e s n o t l a t e r thali t h e d a t o o f i n t r o -
duction o f the B i l l .

6. i ~ sr c g a r d s i n f o r n z t i a n i n t h c e x p l a n a t o r y s t t - t e a c n t on t h e
s u b j e c t ilzatter of l e g d l p r o v i s i o n s i n f g r c e , c t c 1 9 i n t z r alia
on t h e i r i n c l u s i o n a s qnnsxcs t o t h e Bill, andl a s rcgarcls t h e
t e c h n i c a l d r a f t i n g o f t h e e x p l a n a t o r y s t ? t c ~ i c n t ,t h e guidance
g i v e n i n t h c annex t o t h i s Circular should be f o l l o w 2 d . .
-97-

.
-7. This C i r c u l a r s h a l l apiily t o B i l l s l a i d br3forL Y z l i a m n t
subsequent to 1st JL;nuary 1967.
e

The P r i x i i i n i s t c r ‘ s O.Pficc, 15th., Si:,tcnb2r 1966,

J.O. Erag,
Ruth 3ruun-Pc d Grs cn

-98-
 STiLTz&aNT
e. --- S I .-
ii
.-I-_
C C O~lsQ,i~-IIMG
.
ijILLS

1. I n f o r n a t i o n o n . thd contents. . o f - legal p r o v i s i o n..-.

-_--_U_-
u y -__II s .-.

1. (1) Explanztory s t a t e m n t s zccanpanying Bills m e n d i n g ,

a b o l i s h i w o r s u p x s c d i n g nn d c t in f o r c e should i n d i c a t e
f o r r x r Acts a i x n d i n g t h a t Act. 111 case a n o t i f i c a t i o n o f
thc Act h a s b e m i s s u e d , hovuievzr, it w i l l bc s u f f i c i e n t t o
s t a t i : t h c arxxuling L e t s t h a t liavo been passed subsequent t o
t h e n o t i f i e z t i o n of tlic Act, 2nd. such f o r m r m e n d i n e Acts
as .arc par-bicularl-y r c l e v a n t t o -khc: e v a l u a t i o n o f t h c Ell.

( 2 ) I n rilspcct o f t h e o r i g i n a l Act dnd o f a l l f o r n e r

aaending Acts t h a t a r c p a r t i c u l a r l y r - l e v a n t t o t h e e v s l -
u a t i 2 n of t h e B i l l , r z f o r c n c e s should n o r m l l y bc na6e t o t h e
r c l e v s n t colUil:3?s of t h e Records of Pc:rliz:;ientary Procccdings
r i l l a t i n g t o t h e d i s c u s s i o n of t h e s o Acts by P . . ; r l i a n c n t .
The r e f c r c n c c s should. i n c l u d e t h c -deba.tes o f Parlimen'c as
~ c l al s s u p p l c m n t s 3 and C O

( 3 ) If otherwise a B i l l r c l a t c s t.,2 q u e s t i o n s t h a t havc

p r e v i o u s l y becn d i s c u s s e d by P i i r l i a n e n t e .A._ i n connection
with t h e d i s c u s s i o n of o t h e r D i l l s i n c l u d i n g t h e Finance
B i l l , i n t h e c o u r s e o f zn opening cicbate o r i n coiz;ilect:i_on
with q u e s t i o n s or i n q u i r i c s , a' r e f c r c n c 2 t o t h e r c c o r d s o f
P a r l i s u e n t z r y Procebdings on t h e s u b j e c t w i l l o f t e n be
'aiii>rgpriatc.
2. (1) Anending B i l l s s h o u l c e e n e r a l l y i n i?n amiex i n c l u d e
p a r a l l e l t c x t s s a t h a t the t e x t af t h e provisi2ns t o be
clr-zeszded i s qugte8 iiz t h e l e f t - h a n d colmm o f t h e page, while
t h c p r o p o s e d ax1lendnents a r c indicated i n t h e right-hand
colw-ln.
( 2 ) I n B i l l s a s e n d i n g , z b o l i s h i n g ::r s u p r s e d i i v ; an Act
i n farce, t h a t Act, p o s a i b l y t o p t h d r with t h e B i l l i n ti
p a r z l l c l t e x t , should bc incltudcd as a n annex, u n l e s s by
r e a s o n 3 f t h c e x t e n t of the i c t this i s thought t o c n t 2 i l
disproportianatc printing costs.
( 3 ) There a p r l i a n c n t a r y co;.lilitti.C i s s e t up t o c o n s i d e r
a B i l l ancndi-ng, a b o l i s h i n g or s u p c r s c d i n g a n a c t i n f o r c c ,
and i f t h a t Act i s n o t includcd as a n arimx t o t h e B i l l ,
r e p r i n t s of t h e Act shi7uld, a s far 2 s p o s s i b l e , bc C ~ X X U I -
i c a t e d t o t h e co::;::iit'Gez i -cdiately a f t c r i t s aiipointmnt.

3. In e x p l a n a t o r y s t z t c n e n t s a c c . 3 r i p z i ~ i n gm e n d i n 2 B i l l s it w i l l
o f t e n be n e c e s s z r y t o g i v c a b r i e f , g e n e r a l account o f t h e schcixe
i n f3rcc i n t h a t p r t i c u h r f i e l d i n o r d e r t o i l l u : ; t r a t c the contcxt
i n which t h e 3i:lending B i l l s h a l l be e v a l u a t e d .
e
"i In Bills relating t a t h e a p ; ~ l i c n t i o n of t r c . n l<- i.e s , t h c t e x t sf
<he t r c a t f s h o ~ ~ ~ ' r r . ~ nBe . : :iflclu$c:c':
~~y cis annex, 7ibexk Djnish
is f i b t an d ~ t h ~ . n F i c - l 'tLh;tr ~ ~ u . ~fya~ >a ~ 'Danish
~ . ~ ~ .tq.clnslatLIjfi
s h j u I d 'be hicl6dc;d p:lr<ilCeF't,; ' t h c ' z u t h e n t i c %ex-to f t h e t r w t y .
5. If r e f e r e n c e i s nade i i 1 thc B i l l or i n t h ? e x p l a m t o r y
s t a t m e n t t c p x v i s i o n s of o t h c r Acts or o f r c p l a t i o n s , t h e ex-
plantitory s t z t c n c n t s h a l l c o n t a i n i: q u o t a t i a n o f t h e p r o v i s i o n s c r
such p s r t i c u l c r s n b m t t h e i r c o n t e n t s a s ar-2 r c q u i r e d t o u n d m s t m d
the c o n t e n t s o f t h e b i l l and o f t l i u explnn,z,tory s t s t c n e n t zccon-
panying i t .

-99-
 I1 Technical d.r;€tin:sf --
thc: ax,qlm-,toyy, s t a t m c n t

provisions o f tliz Billl1.

a (1) The p a r t ItGeneral cori.xntsl’ shoul6 giv:: a n a c c o u n t of

t h c 3rSnciaz1 i2Jints o f t h e B i l l , t h e rLclson Tor i t s i n t r o -

( 2 ) It w i l l 22iicracilly b e , l o s t a p 2 r a p r i a t e f o r t h e i n f a r -
i m t i n r c f c r r e d . ts i n s < c t i Y a s 2-3 3nd s e c t i o n s 5 ( I ) and
( 2 ) o f t h e C i r c u l a r and i n s e c t i o n s 1 m d 3 3f this Guidancz
t s bc ziv;ii undzr ItGzneri?l C o m c n t s t t .
9 I n t h e prlrt tlCoi:l:icnts gn th; i n d i v i d u a l p r o v i s i o n s D f t h z
B i l l ” t h e c3 e n t s s h o u l d , i n thi. typoga&ic:l l a y o u t , be
att2ched t o e i i i d i u i d u z l chaptcrs ancl s c c t i 3 m . Vzry g f t m . ,
CO ;i;nts should a l s a be w d e o n thL; i n d i v i d u z l s u b s e c t i o n s Df 3
s c c t i g n 2nd on any pamgr3;ili D f 3 s u b s c c t i g n . It n i l 1 3ftL.n bd
oprL3t-c: t o m:;e c e r t a i n c m l m n CD c n t s 311 a cha;tdr before
c n t s a r c m d c an the i n d i v i d u a l s t i s n s aiicl, sii;i12rlyI t o
COLI cc\iz.:dnts 3n a s c c t i Q n befori, ca i n t s aLIz Liadz o n t h L
individual subsccti3ns o f the s c c t i o i l .
10 Thc coiuen-ts i)ii t h e i n d i v i d u a l provisioiis should norim l i y
c o n t a i n i n f o r i m t i o n an t h e c o n t e n t s o f t h e p o v i s i m s i n f o r c c
r z l a t i n g t o t h e p z r t i c u l z r q u e s t i o n , a n th,: x-ieficlncnts t c ! 122
provided ‘ b y t h o B i l l , on tne r;c?sons Uildcrlying t h e proposed
ai;iandneiits niid, i n t h i s c s n t c x t , ;mssibly ai1 z s t i i x i t ; i . a i l o f t h c i r
l i k e l y e f f e c t s . Hcncc, stet d l y r 2 c D r d i i l g tlic contciits o f
t h e p r o p o s e d p r o v i s i o n riwt be considered i n s u f f i c i c n t ,
11 (1).LClerz 3 Bill i s based oil z d r a f t B i l l included i n a
coill;:;ittec or cormiskan i’zpart and t h z r c : i s no s u b s t = n t i z l
d i f f c r c n c c bctvvcm thc. B i l l and t h e d r a f t included i n tli;.
r e p o r t , it will o f t c r i be sufficient to r c p l a c i . t h e coixL-icnts,
i n whole or i n p r t 9 by a r z f c r e n c c t 3 tlic r z 2 o r t l p r o v i d e d
t h e c o l : i i ~ n t s,2311 t h s d r s f t Bill or” t h z r Z p 3 r t arc drsvrn up on
thi: l i n e s o f t h i s Circular.
( 2 ) IJ-.such czses, h o v w n r , a n account should be r i v e n o f v

an6 colllillents m i l a on thi. prtXiculrirs , i n which thc: Sill d i f f w s

fr>!nthe d r a f t B i l l of t h e r c p o r t . I n t h c case o f any change
i n t h C nwbsring of s i . c t i 9 , i i s 7 t h i s should ba i f i d i c a t c d .

-100-
 APPENDIX 2
A selective- list 'o'r-____.__
materi-a1 on the -in.ter-pret_ation
of statutes
s b1ished in&s tr-aL and Canad-a-.an_d_
the United
StatesorAmerica 0

1. AustraliaAnd Mew Zealand

("A.L.Jetfrefers to Australian Law Journal
(''Ue&.Lo J. refers to University of Queensland Law Journal)
A,L. Turner, "An Approach to Statutory Interpretation",
(1948-1950)4 Res Judicatae 237
Eric C.E, Todd, ".StatutoryInterpretation and the Influence
of Standards" (1951-1953) 2. a w
Review 526
V L N. Harrison, "hIethods of Statutory Interpretation
in the House of Lords" (1955)
2 &&Le J, 349.
The Hon. Sir Herbert Mayo, "The Interpretation of Statutes"
(1955) A , L , J . 204 ( f o l l o w e d by a discussion
of the a r t i c l e on pp. 215-223)*

Peter Brett , "The Theory of Interpreting Statutesi!

(1956) 2. - L A 99
Graham L. Hart, Q.C. "An Attempt at the iGeaning of Statutes",
(1956) 2. U ~ . Q ~264
L.J~

J.L. Montrose "Judicial Implementation o f Legislative

(1959) 3 0 U.QoL2Jo 139
Policyst,
P. Brazil "Legislative History and the Interpretation of
Statutes", (1961) 4. U.&.L,J. 1.

/
Sir Garfield Barwicl;, "Divining the Legislative Intent"

Denzil Ward, "A Criticism of the Interpretation o f Statutes

.fn the New Zealand Courts, (1963) .*
New Zealand Law Journgl 293.

-101-
 L
CI
/
\ "U

( "CIB,R, U refer;; ta Canadian Bar Review)

J , Corry, "Administrative Law; Interpretation of Statutes"
(1935) Univer- -
of --
Toronto-L_aw Jp_xn& 286
E. Russell Hopkins , "The Liberal Canon and the Golden Rule"
(1937) 15 =-.-RA 689
Bora Laskin, "Interpre$ation of Statutes - Industrial
Standards Act Ontario'' (1937) 15 660
J . Vilillis, "Statute Interpretation in a Nutshell'',

(1938) 16 L B S _ R , 1
Vincent LlacDonald, "Constitutional Interpretation and
Extrinsic Evidence" , (1939) 17 77
G. Sanagan, "The Construction of Taxing Statutes'', (1940)
18 _C.B.R, 43
'Ue Friedmann, "Statute Law and its Interpretation in the
Modern State", (1948) 26 ,C.-5,RL 1277
E. A. Driedger, "A New Approach to Statutory Interpretation"
(1951) 29 G e B 0R, 838
D.G. Kilgour, "The Rule against the use of Legislative
History: Canon of Construction or Counsel of
Caution?", (1952) 30 C , 3 . R , 769
(see also on this article letter f r o m J o h n
MacQuarrie, [::,CO at (1952) 30. C.B,R, 958 and
letter f r o m DOG. Kilgour at (1952) 30 C,B.R,
1087)
Kenneth Davis i'LegislativeHistory and the Yhea-b Board
Case", (1953) 31 &&& 1
(See a l s o on last two mentioned articles letter by J. Milner
at (1953) 31 C,B_,R, 228)
J . Corry, "The Use cf Legislative History in the

Interpretation of Statutes" , (1954)

32 COB,P? 624
 'i:
4

WG.5
Gwyneth XcGregor, " L i t e r a l o r L i b e r a l ? Trends i n t h e
I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Income Tax Lawff
(1954) 3 2 G_,B.R. 281
E.C.E. Todd, ? ' S t a t u t o r y I n t e r p r e t a t i o n ; L i t e r a l v.
Context" (1956) 34 458
3 . -States o f America
("C0.L.R. if r e f e r s t o Columbia Law Review)
("H. L oR e ' I . refers t o Ilarvard Law Review)
Max Radin, " S t a t u t o r y I n t e r p r e t a t i o n " (1930) 43 H.L.R2 863
James Landis , a Note on " S t a t u t o r y I n t e r p r e t a t i o n " ,
(1930) 43 H.L.R. 886

Justice Felix Fr~nkfurter "Some R e f l e c t i o n s on t h e

Reading o f S t a t u t e s " , Proceed-inps of the

Bar o f t hke- iC
_I (1947) 213;
(1947) 47 &oL.R. 527
C h a r l e s P. C u r t i s , "A B e t t e r Theory of Legal I n t e r p r e t a t i o n ' '
(1949) V o l . 4 Re_cord-c'he Asoc-f
t h e B a r of i\Tew_York 321
J u s t i c e J a c k s o n , "The Meaning o f S t a t u t e s : !!hat Congress
s a y s o r what t h e Court says" (1948) American
Bar A s s g c i a t i o n Jourrml 535
P r o f e s s o r s Henry M . H a r t , Jr. and A l b e r t hi. Sacks,
9
M a k i n g i Q n -o f Law Cambridge

Mass. T e n t a t i v e E d . 1953. [Unpublished b u t

available i n certain libraries]

i'A Revaluation o f t h e Use o f L e g i s l a t i v e H i s t o r y i n t h e

F e d e r a l Courts" (1952) 52 125

Gerald C e NacCallum, Jr.. "Legislative Intent"

75 754