Legal Rules Of Statutory Interpretation

Rules of Statutory Interpretation 1

Rules of Statutory Interpretation

Name of the Class

Professor

Name of the University

City

Date Due

Rules of Statutory Interpretation 2

Rules of Statutory Interpretation

Statutory interpretation defines the processes by which judges and courts of law engage

in the understanding and interpretation of laws while applying legislation to cases. While some

legislations expressly provide clear interpretation, others do not. The latter’s circumstances lead

to ambiguity, non-specificity, and incomplete coverage by the law. They may also be caused by

new developments relating to legislation where changes have to be applied (Katzmann, 2014: 3).

As a result, judges require secondary interpretation for such legislation to successfully solve an

existing legal challenge. The rules established for statutory interpretation by judges and courts

include the literal rule, the golden rule, and the mischief rule, these get considered within

contextual and purposive approaches.

As the first rule of statutory interpretation, the literal rule draws its name from the

consideration given to statutes during legislation. In this approach, statutes are directly and

literally applied as presented by their draftsmen with their ordinary dictionary meanings being

applied. A case of historical application occurred in the Fisher v. Bell [1961] QB 394(Macleod,

2002: 111). In this case, a shopkeeper who later appealed successfully was convicted of making

an offer of a knife which was considered a prohibited and restricted weapon. While the initial

conviction believed there was an offer, a review of the case indicated that the display of the knife

with a tag was merely an invitation to a treat and not an offer. This rule is advantageous when the

statute is clear. It results in quick resolutions and respects parliamentary supremacy. On the other

hand, it can be unjust and may end up with absurd precedents.

The second rule is the golden rule which has the narrow and wide approach. It gets

applied as an extension of the literal rule and performs the role of eliminating potential absurdity

by the former. Cases falling in the narrow approach are brought about by the multiplicity of

Rules of Statutory Interpretation 3

meanings of words. In such cases, judges are compelled to select one meaning whose application

is void of absurdity and whose situational interpretation achieves the best fit (Popkin, 1999: 75).

A typical case of this application was witnessed in the Republic v. Allen (1872) LR1 CCR 376in

which the defendant was accused of bigamy to the effect that she had married more than one

persons as opposed by the law (Sandes, 1951: 184). While one argument projected that the

second marriage would never have been a marriage as civil law would not recognize it, the

courts upheld this conviction on the basis of interpreting marriage as undergoing a ceremony by

using the golden rule.

Most commonly, the wide approach gets used to eliminate ridiculous and repugnant

outcomes brought about by meanings of words (Derham, Maher &Waller, 1983: 209). A typical

case of this is evident in ReSigsworth (1935) 1 CH 98 in which the court bared a son from

inheriting the mother’s property based on the interpretation that a murderer cannot benefit from

the proceeds of the crime of murder (E-Law Resources – UK, 2017). The golden rule stands out

as advantageous because errors can be easily corrected and rulings on statutes remain more

consistent with parliamentary intentions. It leads to more justice and has minimal loopholes.

Contrarily, the fact that judges can change statutory meanings make them lawmakers thereby

invading a right granted to another institution.

Lastly, the mischief statutory rule confirms the possibility of the existence of

mischievous or erroneous applications in statutes. Viewed as an approach to more understanding

of the literal and golden rules, the mischief rule enables judges to gain increased understanding

and discretion in relation to parliamentary intentions. One case involving this rule is that of

Royal College of Nursing v DHSS [1981] 2 WLR 279 in which the plaintiff challenged the

legality of abortions carried out by nurses (E-Law Resources – UK, 2017). In this case, the court

Rules of Statutory Interpretation 4

read no mischief in this act by the nurses with two circumstantial qualifications making the act

legal. The law defined a doctor or legal medical practitioner which accommodated nurses.

Further, the use of non-surgical means was viewed as effective for nurses to help eliminate

dangerous and unsafe street abortions. Other than closing all mischievous loopholes, this rule

allows dynamism in the application of law. However, like the golden rule, it also grants judges

law making powers.

As suggested by Sir Rupert Cross, the unified contextual consideration approach applies

when these rules are used in determining a case. This adopts a progressive dimension in which

judges begin interpreting a statute using literal or ordinary meanings before moving to broader

views where they consider the probability of the existence of absurdities, hence prioritizing the

greatest appeal of reason.

Another such approach is the purposive approach in which jurisdictions consider

underlying legislative purposes. In this case, courts make rullings after considering literal,

golden, and mischievous rules. However, emphasis is laid on the true intentions for which

legislation was designed as explained by Lord Browne-Wilkinson in Pepper (Inspector of Taxes)

v Hart [1993] AC 593. Whether this purpose agrees with the meaning interpretation or not, the

latter prevails (The Law Teacher, 2017).In general, statutory interpretations focus on the

invocation of the rules whose results best satisfy the sense of justice in relation to cases.

Rules of Statutory Interpretation 5

List of References

DERHAM, D. P., MAHER, F. K. H., & WALLER, P. L. (1983). An introduction to law.

Sydney, Law Book Company.

E- E-LAW RESOURCES-UK. (2017). Re Sigsworth. [online] Available at: http://www.e-

lawresources.co.uk/Re-Sigsworth.php [Accessed 6 Mar. 2017].

KATZMANN, R. A. (2014). Judging statutes. New York: Oxford University Press.

MACLEOD, J. K. (2002). Consumer sales law. London, Cavendish.

http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=240826.

POPKIN, W. D. (1999). Statutes in court: the history and theory of statutory interpretation.

DURHAM, NC [u.a.], Duke Univ. Press.

SANDES, R. L. (1951). Criminal law and procedure in the Republic of Ireland. London, Sweet

& Maxwell.

THE LAW TEACHER (2017). Statutory Interpretation | Interpretation of Statutes Notes.

[online] Available at: https://www.lawteacher.net/lecture-notes/english-legal-

system/statutory-interpretation.php [Accessed 6 Mar. 2017].

Place new order. It's free, fast and safe

Paper type

Deadline

Page count

550 words

Total price: $ 15.00

Our customers say

Jeff Curtis

USA, Student

"I'm fully satisfied with the essay I've just received. When I read it, I felt like it was exactly what I wanted to say, but couldn’t find the necessary words. Thank you!"

Ian McGregor

UK, Student

"I don’t know what I would do without your assistance! With your help, I met my deadline just in time and the work was very professional. I will be back in several days with another assignment!"

Shannon Williams

Canada, Student

"It was the perfect experience! I enjoyed working with my writer, he delivered my work on time and followed all the guidelines about the referencing and contents."

Legal Rules of Statutory Interpretation

Place new order. It's free, fast and safe

Our customers say

Jeff Curtis

Ian McGregor

Shannon Williams