QUESTION 1

CONTENTS
1

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION 3 LITERAL RULE 3 and Supporting case GOLDEN RULE 3 and Supporting case MISCHIEF RULE 3 Questions required to establish the meaning of legislation and Supporting case 3- 4 INTRINSIC AIDS 4 PRESUMPTIONS 4-5 and Main purpose of Presumptions EXTRINSIC AIDS 5 LANGUAGE 4 Ejusdem generis, Noscitur a sociis, Expressio unius est exclusio alterius and supported cases 5-6 CONCLUSION 6 REFERENCES 7

Statutory Interpretation is the procedure of applying interpretation and legislation. The Court is required to give meaning to vague and ambiguous words in cases where a statute is involved. The three (3) rules for statutory interpretation are the literal, the golden and mischief. Various methods and tools are used by judges to find meaning of statutes.

Literal rule is considered the prime and safest rule of interpretation because of its plain- meaning approach. The true and basic literal meaning of words in a statute is sought by the legislature. The legislature amends the law in the event that the combination of words put together in a statute was not able to support its intension. CASE: Whiteley v Chappell (1868) LR 4 QB 147. The defendant impersonated a dead man in order to use that vote in an election and was charged on the account that it was against the law to pretend any person entitled to vote. The defendant was acquitted since a dead man cannot vote. The Golden rule of interpretation is used when the literal rule cannot be used. The words in its statute are given its ordinary meaning but as long as it does not lead towards an absurd result. CASE : R v ALLEN (1872) Section 57, Offences Against the Person Act 1861 provided that whoever being married shall marry any other person during the life of the former husband or wifeshall be guilty of bigamy. Under the golden rule of statutory interpretation, shall marry means an individual who goes through a marriage ceremony Mischief rule is used when the Golden rule cannot be used. After the court have evaluated what the law stated before the statute was passed, the court can now determine what mischief the statute originally intended to cover and amend the statute to cover any gaps. It was conceptualized in Heydons case (1584) 3 Co Rep 7a where four (4) questions are said to be a requirement in order to establish the meaning of legislation:1. 2. What was the common law before the making of the Act. What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide.

3. What remedy Parliament hath resolved and appointed to cure the disease of the Commonwealth. 4. The true reason of the remedy; and then the office of the Judges is to make such construction as shall suppress the mischief and advance the remedy.
3

 CASE: Corkery v Carpenter (1951). Shane Corkery was charged for being drunk while carrying a bicycle in public. In 1872, no remarks towards bicycles were made under section 12 of the Licensing Act 1872 for being drunk while in charge of a carriage. To resolve the case, the court had to use the mischief rule to figure out the intention of statute which was to prevent people from being in control of any transportation while being intoxicated. The court determined that the bicycle was a means of transport; this meant that Mr. Corkey was rightfully charged. Intrinsic aids are matters within an Act that may assist giving the words in a statute more clarity and ease to comprehend. The three aids used are the Long, Short and Preamble titles. Long titles or short titles are the long or short headings of statutes that give the overall objective of statutes. Preambles were usually featured in older statutes setting out its purpose in some detail for the intention of interpreting the actual provisions of the Act. The court can make presumptions about a statute when narrowing down the meaning of specific words. Unless expressly stated, there is no change in the existing law in the event of possible conflicts however; a later Act will take effect if two Acts perceive to be irreconcilable. Three main presumptions are:1. 2. 3. The common law has not changed. Mens Rea the metal element or guilty mind must be proven in order for a The retrospective law does not apply.

crime to be committed.

Extrinsic Aid is the external things found outside of the statute that assist judges so that they can have a better understanding of the actual statute. Dictionaries can be useful to judges to find definitions of legal terms. Contexts of previous statutes in relation to the present statute being addressed are used as a guide by judges when interpreting the law.

 Law Commission Reports give reasons for possible changes in the law and judges consider the context in these when interpreting a case. Hansard is the official report of what was said in parliament at the time of a debate. The House of Lords made the decision to refer to these statements in order to interpret the primary legislation when it appeared to be ambiguous following the Pepper v Hart (1992) case where bills, Hansard and other parliamentary materials were used. The court can also look at other words in a statute to ensure the meaning of specific words. The main rules of language developed by the court to assist in making the meaning of phrases or words clearer are as follows:Ejusdem generis (of the same kind) uses the general rule of statutory construction. General words are not to be used in a broad context but must be specific in reference to the case. CASE: Powell v Kempton (1899). Operating from a house, office or room or other place for betting was an offense. The court held that other place was considered indoors and because the defendant was operating at a place on the outside, he was found not guilty.

Noscitur a sociis (known from associates), a word is taken into context by the other words that accompany it. CASE: Muir v Keay (1875). The law stated that all houses kept open at night for public refreshment, resort and entertainment must be licensed but the defendant declared that he did not furnish a license because he did not provide entertainment. The court held that entertainment was meant by the reception and accommodation of the public and not in the context as musical entertainment therefore, the defendant was guilty of the offense.

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius (the express mention of one thing is the
exclusion of another). Only the items mentioned in the list will be taken to account, the excluded items are not. CASE: Tempest v Kilner (1846). A statute required that contracts (in writing) were necessary for the sale of goods, wares and merchandise of 10 and over. Since the sale of stocks and shares were not mentioned in the statute it did not apply. Based on the information stated above I have concluded that the Court applies legal statutes to maintain an efficient legal system within the land. Every statue is created for a reason of some significance. The words in a statute are broken down to its simplest form as to make clear its meaning and intension based on the main rules of language developed by the Court and by the literal, golden or mischief rule of interpretation which are further assisted by intrinsic or extrinsic aids. Although the literal rule is considered the safest rule of interpretation, it is the Mischief rule that covers the gaps that are not addressed by the original statute and amend it accordingly. All the rules and aids in statutory interpretation work hand in hand for the purpose of one goal; that the law is understood clearly, that it is fair and that it is executed in the right manner. (Word Count: 1,412 words)

References: Black et al (2008), Handbook on the Construction and Interpretation of the Laws (with a Chapter on the Interpretation of Judicial Decisions and the Doctrine of Precedents), The Lawbook Exchange, Limited
6

 Enright et al (2002), Legal Technique, The Federation Press. Mothersole & Riley et al (2000), (A-Level Law in Action), 2 nd Edition, Cengage Learning EMEA Slapper & Kelly et al (2003-2004), Questions & Answers, English Legal System, 5th Edition, Cavendish Publishing Limited. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gibbons_v_Proctor, Accessed: 10.12.09 http://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/, Accessed 10.12.09 http://www.open.ac.uk/, Accessed 10.12.09 http:/legaleasy.wordpress.com, Accessed 10.12.09 http://www.oddflower.org/gdl/index.php? title=Carlill_v_Carbolic_Smoke_Ball_Company_(1893)&redirect=no, Accessed: 10.12.09