STATUTORY INTERPRETATION

The doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty

1) Parliament can legislate on any matter
2)Parliament cannot bind successor nor be bound by predecessor
3) Nobody can challenge an Act of Parliament

The doctrine of Separation of Powers

3)Parliament
2)Judiciary
3)Legislative

Legislative process – Aim to meet a particular policy and is political.

Introduction of Bills at HOC.
1st, 2nd reading, Committee Stage, Report Stage and 3rd Reading.
Bill moves to HOL.
1st, 2nd reading, Committee Stage, Report Stage and 3rd Reading.
Royal Assent
Commencement – immediately / delayed

The criticism about statutes

Renton Committee 1975 – Exist in the preparation of the legislation
1) Sought feedback from lay people and judges about statutes
2) categorised complaints into 4 main heads:
a) Obscurity of the language used
b) Over elaboration of provisions
c) Illogicality of structure
d) Confusion arising from amendments

The parameters (standard) that a drafter must take into account while
drafting: according to Francis Bennion – Statute law obscurity and
drafting parameters 1978
1) Legal effectiveness
2) Procedural legitimacy
3) Timeliness
4) Certainty
5) Comprehensibility
6) Brevity
7) Debatibility
8) Legal compatibility

3 Rules of Intepretation
Literal rule
a) Blackstone Commentaries - rationale
b) R v Judge of the City of London Court 1892 – rationale
c) Duport Steels Ltd v Sirs 1980 – rationale
- Fisher v Bell 1951
- R v Maginnis 1987
- R v Harris

Golden rule
- Re Sigsworth 1935
- R v Allen 1872
- Adler v George
Mischief rule – Oldest approach Pepper v Hart started to lose its
Heydon’s Case 1584 appeal and the courts has
Courts were required to consider: become reluctant to rely on
1) What was the common law before the Act? Hansard.
2) What was the mischief for which the common law did not provide? Zafar v DPP 2004
3) What remedy did Parliament intend to provide? Thet v DPP 2007, L.Philips
4) What was the true reason for that remedy?
Statutory Interpretations & key
- Smith v Hughes
features of the HRA 1998
- Royal College of Nursing v DHSS 1981
S3: The courts are under a duty
- Black-Clawson v Papierwerke 1975 L.Diplock
to interpret domestic legislation
Statutory Interpretation & The European approach in a manner that will be
The European Union has a system of its own ( 7 institutions): compatible with the Articles in
1)European Council – Summit of the Head of States the European Convention on
2) European Commission – Executive Human Rights.
3) Council of the EU – Legislative S4: The courts may make a
4)European Parliament – Legislative through elections declaration of incompatibility if a
5) Court of Justice of the EU – Judiciary legislation is inconsistent with
6) European Central Bank any article ECHR.
7) European Courts of Auditors S6: All public authorities
including the courts must act
Statutory Interpretation & the European Approach
compatibly with the articles of
1) The executive issues directives to member states – Directives
ECHR.
2) The legislative sets European Laws – Regulations
3) The Judiciary deals with disputes on EU areas – Decisions The effects of the S.3 rule of
The effect: interpretation:
EU laws become binding in the domestic jurisprudence. If domestic Bold Approaches:
legislation does not sit well with EU law judges interpret the domestic R v A 2001
legislation in a way it is compatible with the EU law. Re S 2002
Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza 2004
What is the European method of interpretation?
R v Offen and others 2001
Common law system: Parliament is sovereign, not a Codified constitution.
Judges must respect an Act of Parliament and not try to guess its meaning. Conclusion:
Traditions over pragmatism. HRA given judges a new
Civil law system: A lot more pragmatic. Look to the purpose of the law. The constitutional position,
whole context of the law to give provisions a meaning. empowering them to interpret a
Bulmer v Bollinger1974 L.Denning legislation in a manner different
than Parliament had in order to
The significance of Pepper v Hart & the controversy regarding use of the
bring the statute in line with
Hansard.
human rights principles.
Davis v Johnson 1978
Juges who are not fond of
HOL overtuned decisions of Denning (CA) to use Hansard in interpreting
activism choose to adopt the
the Domestic Violence and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1976.
interpretive duty in S.4 than S.3.
2 reasons why courts should refuse to have regard to what is said in
Parliament or by ministers as aids to the interpretation:
1) Material is an unreliable guide.
2) Counsel not permitted to refer to Hansard in argument.
Pepper v Hart 1993

Affected case after Pepper v Hart

1) CAO v Foster
2) Stubbings v Webb
3) R v WCC, ex parte Johnson