A collection of notes for the English Legal System & Constitutional Law module on the PGDL course at University of Law. I took the online course in 2023/2024, and achieved a 75% using these notes.
unit 1: the els & statutory
interpretation
Created @May 19, 2022 2:45 PM
Tags complete
1. Rules of Construction
1.1 The Literal Rule
1.1.1 Meaning of the rule
1.1.2 Problems with the rule
1.2 The Golden Rule
1.2.1 Meaning of the rule
1.2.2 Use of the rule
1.2.3 Other use of the golden rule
1.3 The Mischief Rule
1.4 Interaction between the rules
2. The purposive approach
2.1 Legislation related to EU Law
2.2 The Impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on Principles of Statutory Interpretation
3. Rules of language
3.1 Noscitur a Sociis (Recognition by Associated Words)
3.2 Eiusdem Generis (of the Same Kind or Nature): “or other…”
3.3 Expressio Unius est Exclusio Alterius (Expressing One Thing Excludes Another)
4. Aids to interpretation
4.1 Intrinsic Aids (the Use of the Statute Itself)
4.2 Extrinsic Aids (Aids Outside the Statute Itself)
4.2.1 Interpretation Acts
4.2.2 Dictionaries
4.2.3 Other statutes
4.2.4 Hansard
5. Presumptions
5.1 When do Presumptions Apply?
6. Summary
unit 1: the els & statutory interpretation 1
, 1. Rules of Construction
1.1 The Literal Rule
1.1.1 Meaning of the rule
Words must be given their plain, ordinary and literal meaning (Sussex Peerage
Case).
If the words are clear, they must be applied, even though the intention of the
legislator may have been different, or the result is harsh or undesirable.
The assumption is that the words have been carefully chosen in order to carry out
the intention of Parliament, or that of the person on whose behalf the document has
been drafted.
If Parliament does not like the literal interpretation, then it can always amend the
legislation.
1.1.2 Problems with the rule
There is always the danger that a particular interpretation may be the equivalent of
making law, and therefore some judges prefer to stick to the literal rule so as to avoid
this.
However, the irony of this rule is that its very use may defeat the intention of
Parliament and lead to absurd results.
Whiteley v Chappell
- “a person entitled to vote”
- The defendant could not be convicted of the statutory offence because
the person he impersonated was dead, and on a literal construction of the
relevant statutory provision, the deceased was not “a person entitled to
vote”.
London & North Eastern Railway Co v Berriman
- A railway worker’s widow was denied compensation because her
husband was killed when oiling points and this was ‘maintaining’ the line -
not ‘re-laying or repairing it’, as required by the relevant statute.
unit 1: the els & statutory interpretation 2
, 1.2 The Golden Rule
1.2.1 Meaning of the rule
Where there are two meanings to a word or words, they should be given their
ordinary meaning as far as possible, but only to the extent that they do not produce
an absurd or totally obnoxious result (Lord Wensleydale in Grey v Pearson).
Adler v George
- Facts: The defendant was convicted by the magistrates of an offence
under s 3 of the Official Secrets Act 1920, because he had obstructed a
member of Her Majesty’s forces whilst ‘in the vicinity of any prohibited
place’. In this instance, the defendant was inside Marham Royal Air Force
station, and he argued that he could not therefore have been ‘in the
vicinity’ of the station as he was actually on the base itself.
- It would lead to an absurd result if the defendant were to be found not
guilty, because it would mean that the offence could only be committed if
the obstruction occurred outside the base and not within its grounds. This
would not serve the purpose of the Act, which was to protect such military
bases.
1.2.2 Use of the rule
The golden rule is applied most frequently in a narrow sense where there is some
ambiguity or absurdity in the words themselves.
unit 1: the els & statutory interpretation 3
, R v Allen
- “Whosoever being married, shall marry any other person during the
lifetime of his spouse…” shall commit the offence of bigamy.
- The word ‘marry’ can mean (1) to become legally married to a person; or
(2) to go through a marriage ceremony.
- If the word ‘marry’ had been given the first interpretation, it would be
impossible for anyone ever to commit this offence as one cannot legally
marry if one is already married.
- The court therefore interpreted the word as meaning ‘going through the
ceremony’ of marriage.
- The literal interpretation would lead to the absurd result, that no-one
could be convicted of bigamy.
1.2.3 Other use of the golden rule
The second use of the golden rule is in a wider sense - to avoid a result which is
obnoxious to principles of public policy, even where words have only one meaning.
Re Sigsworth
- Facts: Under the intestacy rules, the son would have inherited his
mother’s residuary estate as her ‘issue’ (child).
- There was no ambiguity in the Act, but the court held that the son, as
issue, could not inherit because this would produce an obnoxious result,
contrary to the general principle of public policy that a murderer should not
reap the fruits of his crime.
- As a consequence, the judges effectively wrote into the Act that the
‘issue’ would not be entitled to inherit where he had killed the deceased.
Inco Europe Ltd v First Choice Distribution
- Held: Words could be added to a statute to resolve an obvious drafting
error, despite the absence of any such appeal in the statute.
NOTE: The golden rule does not look to the purpose of the statute.
This is a separate rule of construction.
unit 1: the els & statutory interpretation 4
, 1.3 The Mischief Rule
The mischief rule requires the interpreter of the statute to ascertain the legislator’s
intention.
Corkery v Carpenter
- Facts: Under s 12 of the Licensing Act 1872, a person found drunk in
charge of a ‘carriage’ on the highway may be arrested without a warrant.
- Held: The word ‘carriage’ could include a bicycle.
- The Act was aimed at drunken persons in charge of some form of
transportation and the exact nature of that transportation was interpreted
widely.
- The mischief the statute intended to remedy was injury to the public from
drunken drivers in order to preserve public order.
1.4 Interaction between the rules
Smith v Hughes
- Facts: Under section 1(1) of the Street Offences Act 1959, it is an
offence under that Act for a prostitute to solicit in a ‘street or public place’.
The women were not actually in the street, but were inside their homes,
tapping on their windows and calling to attract the attention of men.
- The literal rule would have resulted in the women being acquitted. They
were in their own homes and, using the plain, ordinary or literal meaning,
‘a street or public place’ does not include private residences.
- However, the women were found guilty. Lord Parker used the mischief
rule and stated that the aim of the Act was ‘to clean up the streets, to
enable people to walk along the streets without being molested or solicited
by common prostitutes’.
2. The purposive approach
2.1 Legislation related to EU Law
Under the European Communities Act 1972, while the UK remains subject to EU
rules, the court must adopt a purposive approach in construing EU related legislation
unit 1: the els & statutory interpretation 5
, and in particular UK provisions that implement EU law.
European Union legislation follows the civil law tradition, which favours simplicity of
drafting and a high degree of abstraction, rather than the exhaustive approach
adopted in the UK.
Lister v Forth Dry Dock and Engineering Co Ltd
- Facts: Employees were dismissed one hour before a business was
transferred to a new owner. The employees claimed they were unfairly
dismissed.
- Under a statutory instrument, a transfer shall not terminate the contract
of any person employed ‘immediately before the transfer’.
- The House of Lords read in the additional words ‘or would have been so
employed if he had not been unfairly dismissed before the transfer’ for a
reason connected with the transfer.
- This was necessary to achieve the purpose of protecting the employees
on the transfer of a business.
2.2 The Impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on
Principles of Statutory Interpretation
Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 provides that ‘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 the Convention rights’.
If the court cannot achieve this, it may make a declaration of incompatibility.
unit 1: the els & statutory interpretation 6
Les avantages d'acheter des résumés chez Stuvia:
Qualité garantie par les avis des clients
Les clients de Stuvia ont évalués plus de 700 000 résumés. C'est comme ça que vous savez que vous achetez les meilleurs documents.
L’achat facile et rapide
Vous pouvez payer rapidement avec iDeal, carte de crédit ou Stuvia-crédit pour les résumés. Il n'y a pas d'adhésion nécessaire.
Focus sur l’essentiel
Vos camarades écrivent eux-mêmes les notes d’étude, c’est pourquoi les documents sont toujours fiables et à jour. Cela garantit que vous arrivez rapidement au coeur du matériel.
Foire aux questions
Qu'est-ce que j'obtiens en achetant ce document ?
Vous obtenez un PDF, disponible immédiatement après votre achat. Le document acheté est accessible à tout moment, n'importe où et indéfiniment via votre profil.
Garantie de remboursement : comment ça marche ?
Notre garantie de satisfaction garantit que vous trouverez toujours un document d'étude qui vous convient. Vous remplissez un formulaire et notre équipe du service client s'occupe du reste.
Auprès de qui est-ce que j'achète ce résumé ?
Stuvia est une place de marché. Alors, vous n'achetez donc pas ce document chez nous, mais auprès du vendeur ulawstudentpgdlandbpc. Stuvia facilite les paiements au vendeur.
Est-ce que j'aurai un abonnement?
Non, vous n'achetez ce résumé que pour €14,92. Vous n'êtes lié à rien après votre achat.
