Sources of Law

Statutory Interpretation

What do you need to know?• Why we need statutory interpretation• How each rule works• You should know at least two cases for each rule• The strengths and weaknesses of each rule• The difference between the mischief rule and the

purposive approach• What approach is used most • The rules of language• Presumptions• Intrinsic aids• Extrinsic aids (particularly when Hansard can be used)• The impact of the Human Rights Act 1998

Common mistakes

• Not using the source• Only using the source – not knowing any other cases• Not answering the question asked• In question B only applying one rule or approach to each

situation• Not answering part of a question• Getting intrinsic and extrinsic aids muddled• Not being able to distinguish the rules of language• Lack of detail• Lack of discussion and comment for AO2

How to avoid these mistakes• Revise thoroughly• Answer the questions asked• Apply all three rules or both approaches to

each situation in question B• Refer to the source throughout your answer –

you can refer to line numbers you do not have to write out chunks of source

• Use a highlighter to highlight the source for each question

The Literal Rule

• The natural meaning of a word• Whitely v Chappell (1869)• Berriman (1946)• Fisher v Bell (1960)

Strengths and criticisms

• Strengths• Simple – just give words their normal meaning• Courts do not need to guess what parliament

meant• Normally works fine• Criticisms• Can lead to unfair and illogical decisions• Zander – mechanical and divorced from the

realities of language

The Golden Rule

Two approaches• Narrow- If there are two possible

meanings choose the the most sensible

• R v Allen (1872)

The broad approach

• Re Sigsworth

Strengths and weaknesses

• Safety net for the literal rule• But hardly ever used• Judges don’t like telling parliament

they are being absurd• Broad approach is really judges

making up law

The Mischief Rule

• Heydon’s Case (1584)1.What was the common law before the

act2. What was the mischief the common law

did not deal with3. What was the remedy parliament came

up with4. The reason for the remedy – suppress

the mischief and advance the remedy

Cases

Smith v Hughes (1960)

Royal College of Nursing(1981)

Strengths and criticisms

• Finds the meaning that seems to be what parliament intended

• Looks at the reason for the law• Can be used to extend the meaning of

an act to fit new situations• Needs the use of extrinsic aidsSo cases might be more expensive and

time consuming

The Purposive Approach

• Magor and St Mellons v The Newport Corporation (1950)

• Royal College of Nursing• How does it differ from the mischief rule• DPP v Bull

• The European approach• Purposive approach has to be used for European law

Rules of Language

• Ejusdem Generis

• Noscitur a sociis

• Expressio unius est exclusio alterius

Presumptions

• A presumption against a change in the common law

• A presumption that mens rea is required in criminal cases

• A presumption that the crown is not bound by any statute

• A presumption that legislation does not act retrospectively

Aids to interpretation

Intrinsic aids• Short title• Long title• Preamble• Headings• Interpretation section

Extrinsic Aids

• Previous Acts of Parliament• The Historical setting• Earlier case law• Dictionaries of the time• Hansard• Reports of law reform bodies• International conventions, treaties, or

european law

The use of Hansard

• Davis v Johnson(1979)• Hansard was not allowed to be used • What were the reasons?• Pepper v Hart (1993)• Limited use permitted. What are the

circumstances it is allowed?• What are the advantages and

disavantages of using Hansard?

The Human Rights Act 1998

• S 3 All legislation should be read and given effect in a way that is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.