BPP LAW SCHOOLBPP LAW SCHOOL

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION

KATHARINE MATHESON

BPP LAW SCHOOL

Learning Outcomes

—Methods of Statutory Interpretation

—Rules of Language

— Presumptions

—Additional Aids

—Human Rights Act 1998

BPP LAW SCHOOL

Parliamentary Supremacy

‘the right to make or unmake any law whatsoever; … and further that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having the right to override or set aside the

legislation of Parliament’

per AV Dicey

British Railways Board v Pickin [1974] 1 All ER 609

BPP LAW SCHOOL

The Mischief Rule

Hayden’s Case (1584) Co Rep 79

1. What was the Common Law?

2. What was the mischief and defect?

3. What remedy?

4. The true reason of the remedy.

BPP LAW SCHOOL

Smith v Hughes [1960] 1 WLR 830

s1 Street Offences Act 1959

‘It shall be an offence for a common prostitute to loiter or solicit in a street or public place for the purposes of prostitution.’

BPP LAW SCHOOL

The Literal Rule

Sussex Peerages Case (1884) 8 ER 1034

‘If the words of the statute are in themselves precise and unambiguous, then no more can be necessary than to expound on those words in their natural and

ordinary sense.’ per Lord Tindal CJ

BPP LAW SCHOOL

Fisher v Bell [1961] 1QB 394

s1 Restriction of Offences Weapons Act 1959 – an offence to ‘sell, hire or offer for sale or hire’

BPP LAW SCHOOL

The Golden Rule

River Wear Commrs v Adamson (1877) 2 App Cas 743

• Inconsistency

• Absurdity

• Inconvenience

BPP LAW SCHOOL

Maddox v Storer [1962] 2 WLR 958

—s24(1) Road Traffic Act 1960: "It shall not be lawful for a person to drive a motor vehicle of any class or description on a road at a speed greater than the speed specified in the First Schedule to this Act as the maximum speed in relation to a vehicle of that class or description.“

—Schedule 1 para 1 - "vehicles...... adapted to carry more than seven passengers exclusive of the driver - 30 miles per hour."

BPP LAW SCHOOL

Maddox v Storer [1962] 2 WLR 958

s13(1) It shall not be lawful for more than one person to be carried on a road on a bicycle not propelled by mechanical power unless it is constructed or adapted for the carriage of more than one person.

Schedule 1 para 1 - "vehicles...... adapted to carry more than seven passengers exclusive of the driver - 30 miles per hour."

BPP LAW SCHOOL

Parker CJ, on the meaning of adapted ‘if one gave it a meaning in paragraph 1 (1) of the First Schedule of being altered so as to make it fit, it seems to me to make nonsense of the provision.’

BPP LAW SCHOOL

Purposive Rule

Subsuming the mischief rule

Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v Hart [1993] AC 593

‘give effect to, rather than thwart, the intention of Parliament’

per Lord Browne-Wilkinson

BPP LAW SCHOOL

R v Pigg [1983] 1All ER 56

s17(3) Juries Act 1974

‘A court shall not accept a majority verdict of guilty unless the foreman of the jury has stated in

open court the number of jurors who respectively agreed to and dissented from the

verdict’

BPP LAW SCHOOL

Lord Brandon

‘It is the substance of the requirement prescribed by s 17(3) which has to be complied with, and

the precise form of words by which such compliance is achieved, so long as the effect is

clear, is not material’

BPP LAW SCHOOL

Linguistic Presumptions

A presumption is not a hard and fast rule.

It is a starting point only.

Presumptions can be rebutted.

BPP LAW SCHOOL16 TITLE HERE 00 MONTH 0000

A list of two or more words followed by a general clause.

The presumption is that the general clause is limited to things of the same kind as in the list.

S2(1) applies to sheep, goats, pigs, cows, horses and other animals.

Fox? Donkey?

S3(1) applies to parsley, basil, dill and other plants being sold in pots.

Tarragon? Orchid?

Eiusdem Generis

BPP LAW SCHOOL

Eiusdem Generis

Powell v Kempton Park Racecourse [1899] AC 143

s1 Betting Act 1853

‘House, office, room or other place’

BPP LAW SCHOOL18 TITLE HERE 00 MONTH 0000

The expression of one thing is the exclusion of another.

A list without a general clause after it. The presumption is that if something is not included in the list it is excluded.

S2(1) applies to any horse, cow, pig, sheep and goat.

Will it apply to a donkey?

An adjective attached to a noun. The presumption is that the adjective has a limiting effect and it will not apply to something without this characteristic.

S3(1) It is a defence to have written consent.

Will there be a defence to oral consent?

Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius

BPP LAW SCHOOL

Expressio Unius Est Exclusio Alterius

R v Inhabitants of Sedgley (1831) 2 B & Ad 65

Statute 43 Eliz. c. 2, s. 1

‘land, houses and coalmines’

BPP LAW SCHOOL

Smith v Hughes [1960] 1 WLR 830

s1 Street Offences Act 1959

‘It shall be an offence for a common prostitute to loiter or solicit in a street or public place for the purposes of prostitution.’

BPP LAW SCHOOL TITLE HERE 00 MONTH 0000

A word is known by its associates.

A word takes its meaning from other words in the same clause.

S20 Wills Act 1837 a will is revoked by ‘burning, tearing mutilating or defacing.’

It is only partially destroyed by fire. Is this enough or must it be completely destroyed?

A word takes its meaning from elsewhere in the statute.

S2 refers to written consent. S6 refers to consent.

Will oral consent suffice for s6?

Noscitur a sociis

BPP LAW SCHOOL

Noscitur a sociis

R v Harris (1836) 173 ER 198

statute 9 Geo. IV. c. 31, s. 12

‘who shall unlawfully and maliciously stab, cut or wound any person.’

BPP LAW SCHOOL

Presumption against criminal liability without mens rea

—Sweet v Parsley [1970] AC 132

‘whenever a section is silent as to mens rea, there is a presumption that, in order to give

effect to the will of Parliament, we must read in words appropriate to mens rea’

per Lord Reid

BPP LAW SCHOOL

Presumptions

Presumption against alteration to the common law.

Presumption against deprivation of liberty.

Presumption against retrospective effect.

Presumption against deprivation of private property.

Presumption against gaining advantage from wrongdoing.

(Re Sigsworth [1935] Ch 89)

Presumption against interference with private rights.

Presumption against the Crown being bound.

BPP LAW SCHOOL

Additional Aids

Intrinsic

Short Title

Long Title

Preamble

Interpretative Section

BPP LAW SCHOOL

Additional Aids - Extrinsic

Interpretation Act 1978

Dictionary - R v Fulling [1987] 2 WLR 923

Hansard - Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593

European Law

BPP LAW SCHOOL

Human Rights Act 1998

s3‘so far as it is possible to do so, primary and subordinate legislation must be read and given

effect in a way which is compatible with convention rights’

s4(2) ‘If the court is satisfied that the provision is

incompatible with a Convention right, it may make a declaration of that incompatibility.’

BPP LAW SCHOOL

Conclusions

Rules are there to help judges apply legislation to real life situations

There is no one correct answer as to which rules judges use

Practice applying the rules rather than just learning them