Statutory Interpretation

Legal Systems and Method

2018

Mahesh Abeynayake
LL.B(Hons) ,LL.M, M. Phil (Moratuwa)
Attorney-at-Law
Senior Lecturer –University of Moraruwa
 Literal Rule

• Words must be given their plain, ordinary

everyday, dictionary meaning.
 Fisher v Bell [1961] 1 QB 394

• In that case a shopkeeper was charged with the

offence of ‘offering for sale’ a flick knife contrary to
section-1 Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959.
• This shopkeeper had displayed the knife for sale in
their shop window with a price tag on it.
• The court held that the shopkeeper was not guilty .
 Golden Rule

 Where the literal rule gives more than one

meaning/ word may be unclear / adopting a
particular meaning may lead to an absurd result.
 Adler v George [1964] 2 QB 7

 According to section 3 of the Official Secrets Act

1920 , obstructing a member of the armed forces
‘in the vicinity of any prohibited place’ is an
offence.
 The defendant was inside an Air force base at the
time of the incident and thus, could not be said to
have been ‘in the vicinity’ of the airbase.
 It would be absurd if the law was interpreted in
such a way .
 The defendant was convicted.
 Mischief rule

• Derives from Heydon’s Case (1584) 3 Co Rep 7a

• When applying the mischief rule the court must consider
the following:

(1) What was the common law position before the passing of
the statute?
(2)What was the ‘mischief’ in law that the common law did
not adequately deal with?
(3)What remedy did Parliament intend to provide for this
mischief?
(4) What was the reason for Parliament adopting that
remedy?
 Smith v Hughes [1960] 1 WLR 830.

• According to Section 1(1) of the Street Offences Act

1959 it is an offence for a prostitute to loiter or
solicit potential customers in a street or public
place.
• The defendant in that case was a prostitute.
• The defendant, had been sat at the window on a
house tapping on a window in order to attract the
attention of male passers-by.
• It was argued that no offence had been committed
as soliciting from a first floor window was not
‘soliciting in a street’ .
• Lord Chief Justice Parker stated;

• “I approach the matter [of interpretation] by

asking what is the mischief aimed at by this Act?
Everybody knows that this was an Act intended to
clean up the streets, to enable people to walk
along the streets without being molested or
solicited by common prostitutes.
• Viewed in this way it can matter little whether the
prostitute is soliciting while in the street or
standing in a doorway, or on a balcony, or at a
window, or whether the window is shut or open or
half open; in each case her solicitation is projected
to and addressed to somebody walking in the
street.’
 The court held that defendant had committed an
offence under Section 1(1) of the Street Offences
Act 1959 .
 Ejusdem Generis Rule

 General words mean the same kind of thing as the

specific words they follow.
 Powell V. Kempton Park Racecourse (1899)
 According to Betting Act 1853 “betting in a house,
office or other place” is prohibited.
 The Court held phrase “other place “meant indoor
places.
 A ring on a racecourse was not fall within the
category of “other place”.
 Noscitur a sociis Rule

• A word draws its meaning from other words around

it.
‘cat baskets, toy mice and food’ the word
‘food’ is referring to ‘cat food’ and not dog
food.

• (Example taken from Elliot, C. & Quinn, F. ‘English Legal

System’ 10th edition (London: Pearson Longman, 2009) at
p.61)
 Presumptions

 A statute does not have any retrospective effect

 presumptions are rebuttable