Unit 12

Statutory Interpretation in Practice

 The Literal Rule
• Give words their ordinary, natural meaning (or technical
meaning if they have acquired one) applying standard
grammatical rules
• The preferred interpretation should be literal whenever
possible.
– Some judges go further: “If the words of an Act are clear, you
must follow them, even though they lead to manifest absurdity.
The court has nothing to do with the question whether the
legislature has committed an absurdity” (Lord Esher (1892))
• For Parliament to correct the absurdity
 Poor Law
Amendment Act 1851
S.3 penalises the impersonation at an election of “any
person entitled to vote”

• Did it apply to someone impersonating a deceased

voter?
• Whitley v Chappell (1868)
Misuse of Drugs Act
1971
S.1 makes it an offence “for a person to have a controlled
drug in his possession, whether lawfully or not, with
intent to supply it to another”.

• Package of cannabis resin in D’s car. D said it belonged

to a friend who was going to collect it from him later.

• Was D guilty?
• R v Maginnis (1987)
 “ordinary” or
“technical” meaning?
Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959

s.1(1) Any person who manufactures, sells or hires or

offers for sale or hire or lends or gives to any other
person any knife of the kind sometimes known as a flick
knife is guilty of an offence.

• Did a shop owner who displayed flick knives in his shop

window commit the offence?
• Fisher v Bell (1961)
 Income Tax Act
1952
S.27(1)(c) An “Industrial Building or Structure” is defined as one “in use
for the purpose of trade which consists in the manufacture of goods or
materials or the subjection of foods or materials to any process”

• Was a crematorium an industrial building or structure” within the

meaning of section 27(1)(c)?
• Bourne v Norwich Crematorium (1967)

S.55(3) “a person who failed to submit an accurate tax return should

forfeit £20 plus treble the tax, which he ought to be charged under the
act”

• Does section 55(3) mean:

1. Treble the amount of unpaid tax, or
2. Treble the total amount payable in one year?
• Inland Revenue Commission v Hinchy (1960)
 Interpretation Act
1978
• grammatical presumptions. E.g.:
– Equivalence of singular and plurals terms
– Equivalence of masculine and feminine pronouns
– “Land” includes buildings on land
• Rebuttable
 The “Golden Rule”

“In construing statutes the grammatical and ordinary

sense of the words is to be adhered to, unless that would
lead to some absurdity or some repugnancy or
inconsistency with the rest of the instrument, in which
case the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words
may be modified so as to avoid that absurdity or
inconsistency, but no further” (Lord Wensleydale, Grey v
Pearson (1857))

• Narrow version
– word/phrase has two alternative meanings and one would result in
injustice/absurdity
• Broad version
– word/phrase is clear but the effect would conflict with other policy
objectives
 Offences Against
the Person Act
S.57 Whosoever being married shall marry any other
person during the life of the former husband or wife …
shall be guilty of felony.

• Given that a second attempt at marriage would be void,

was it impossible to commit bigamy under this definition?
• R v Allen (1872)
 Administration of
Estate Act 1925
S.46 The residuary estate shall be distributed in
accordance with the provisions which give to the sole
issues

• Can a murderer benefit from his victim’s estate?

• Re: Sigsworth (1935)
 Adoption Act 1976

The Registrar General “shall upon application as

prescribed by any adopted person supply sufficient
information to enable that adopted person to obtain a
copy of their original birth certificate”.

• Application made by inmate of secure mental hospital

who had already killed twice and who had expressed
wish to kill adoptive mother. Medical advice was that if
he was released and knew his birth mother’s identity, he
would try to harm her. Was he entitled to a copy of the
original birth certificate?
• R v Registrar General ex parte Smith (1991)
 Evaluation of the
Golden Rule
• Avoids some problems (possible absurdity) of
literal rule
• Inconsistently applied
• Encourages judicial discretion
• Does not really take account of parliamentary
intention
 Mischief Rule
• Heydon’s Case (1584): 4 things to be considered
– Find common law rule before the passing of the Act
– Find mischief or defect for which the common law did not provide
– Attempt to understand the remedy adopted by Parliament to
remove the mischief
– In the light of these discover the meaning of the words

• Lord Diplock, Jones v Wrotham Park Settled Estates

(1980)
– determine from Act as a whole, the mischief the Act was intended
to remedy
– Must be apparent that Parliament had inadvertently failed to deal
with mischief
– Must be able to state “with certainty” the words Parliament would
have inserted to deal with it
Licensing Act 1872

Person found drunk in charge of a “carriage” may be

arrested without a warrant.

• D was drunk in charge of a bicycle. Could he be arrested

without a warrant?
• Corkery v Carpenter (1951)
 Guard Dogs Act
1975
S.1 A person shall not use or permit the use of a guard dog at
any premises unless a person (“the handler”) who is capable
of controlling the dog is present on the premises and the dog
is under the control of the handler at all times while it is
being so used except while it is secured so that it is not at
liberty to go freely about the premises.

• D had three Alsatians guarding his premises without a

handler, but the dogs were secured and could not roam
freely about.

• Was D guilty?
• Hobson v Gledhill (1978)
Street Offences Act
1957
S.1 It shall be an offence for a common prostitute to loiter
or solicit in a street or public place for the purpose of
prostitution.

• Did a prostitute commit an offence by soliciting men

passing along the street from a balcony or behind a
window?
• Smith v Hughes (1960)
 Official Secrets Act
1920
S.3 It is an offence to obstruct a member of the armed
forces “in the vicinity of” certain specified locations.

• Has someone committed an offence by obstructing a

soldier not in the vicinity of one of these locations but
actually inside an Air Force base that was a specified
location?
• Adler v George (1964)
 Abortion Act 1967

Termination of a pregnancy must be undertaken by a

“registered medical practitioner”.

• Was an offence committed using a new, less invasive

procedure that involved a doctor inserting a tube, leading
to an abortion at a later time under the supervision of a
nurse?
• Royal College of Nursing v DHSS (1981)
Race Relations Act
1976
S.32(1) “Anything done by a person in the course of his
employment shall be treated for the purposes of this Act
(except as regards offences thereunder) as done by his
employer as well as by him, whether or not it was done
with the employer’s knowledge or approval”

• Were verbal taunting, whipping across the legs, burning

with a hot screwdriver etc. done “in the course of his
employment”?
• Jones v Tower Boot Co. (1997)
 Evaluation of the
Mischief Rule
• Relates to the purposive approach
• Seeks to give effect to the intentions of
Parliament
• More flexible than literal or golden rules
• Increases judicial discretion
• Can be difficult to determine the “mischief”
that an Act is aimed at
Subsidiary Rules of
Construction
• A statute should be read as a whole
– See AG Ref. (No.1) (1988) – next slide
• Rules of Language
– Ejusdem Generis
– Expressio unius est exclusio alterius
– Noscitur a sociis
• Presumptions. E.g.:
– No retrospective action
– No strict liability
– Criminal law, benefit of the doubt to D
– Parliament intends to honour international obligations
– All rebuttable
Company Securities
(Insider Dealing) Act
1985
S.1(3)(a) Insider dealing has occurred when an “an
individual has information which he knowingly obtained
from another individual” that should not be used for
trading.

• Did “obtain” require the defendant to “actively get” the

information or was “passively receiving” it enough?
• Attorney General’s Reference (No.1) (1988)
 Ejusdem Generis
• Of the same kind
• List: “X, Y, and similar Zs” applies to an item not on the list
only if it really belongs to class Z

Obscene Publications 1959

It is a defence to the sale of material to show that it is for the
public good on the grounds that it is in the interest of science,
literature, art, learning, or of “other objects of general
concern”.

• Could a defendant call expert evidence to show that material

was psychologically beneficial to those with certain sexual
tendencies?
• DPP v Jordan (1976)
Expressio unius est
exclusio alterius
• The expression of one is the exclusion of others
• E.g. “land and coalmines” does not include slate mines (R v
Inhabitants of Sedgley (1831))

Mental Health Act 1959

S.102 empowers a judge to do all such things in respect of a
mental patient’s property and affairs as are necessary-
(1) for the maintenance or benefits of the patient’s “family”
(2) making provision for “other persons” for whom the patient
might be expected to provide, were he not mentally disordered.

• Does the word “family” include collateral relatives?

• Re: DML (1965)
 Noscitur a sociis

• Know it from its associates

• a word’s meaning can be gathered from its
context
• E.g. “cat baskets, toy mice and food”
 Presumptions
(rebuttable)
• Legislation does not operate retrospectively
• Legislation does not create strict liability offence
(committed without fault)
• Criminal law, benefit of the doubt to D
– Strict construction of criminal laws in favour of the
defendant (e.g. offers for sale flick knife in Fisher v
Bell)
• Parliament intends to honour the UK’s
international obligations
 9 Geo. VI c. 31

S.12 It is an offence “to unlawfully and maliciously

stab, cut or wound any person”

• Had the defendant who had bitten the end off the victim’s
nose committed the offence?
• R v Harris (1836)
Offences against the
Persons Act 1861
S.31 It is an offence to be found setting or
placing any spring gun, man trap, or other
engine calculated to destroy human life or inflict
grievous bodily harm.

• Did the husband who wired up a light and windows to

cause a severe shock to his wife commit the offence?
• R v Munks (1964)
Treaties and international
conventions

• Presumed that Parliament did not intend to

legislate in contravention of them (Fothergill v
Monarch Airlines)
• Text normally included in a schedule to the Act
 Aids to
Interpretation
• Intrinsic
– Punctuation
– Schedules
– Long title, preamble (if included), headings and short
title
– Footnotes and relevant side notes
– Act to be construed as a whole
• Extrinsic
– Part of trend away from the purely literal, intrinsic
approach
 In Summary
• Judges do not usually state the rule they are applying
• Judicial declaratory rhetoric
• There is overlap between the rules of interpretation
• There is a broad spectrum between an entirely literal
approach and an entirely purposive approach
• Recent trend towards a more purposive approach (e.g.
Pepper v Hart)
– “The days have long passed when the courts adopted a strict
constructionist view of interpretation which required them to
adopt the literal meaning of the language. The courts now adopt
a purposive approach which seeks to give effect to the true
purpose of legislation and are prepared to look at much
extraneous material that bears upon the background against
which the legislation was enacted” (Lord Griffiths)