Statutory Interpretation - Whitely V Chappell (1868) , R V Harris (1836), Fisher V Bell (1961)

Statutory interpretation

This is a guide for judges as to how they should go about interpreting what parliament meant in statute.

The Literal Rule

Ordinary natural meaning even if it leads to an absurdity

Whitely v Chappell (1868) , R v Harris (1836), Fisher v Bell (1961)

Judges will always start with the literal rule, they will then progress on with the golden and mischief rule. If the statue has been made by the European parliament then they can only apply the purposive approach.

Lord Esher in 1892 said if the words of an act are clear then you must follow them even if they lead to a manifest absurdity. Lord Reid (Pinner v Everett 1969) said in determining the meaning of any words or phrase the first question to ask is always “what is the natural and ordinary meaning of the word or phrase in its context in the statue”.  Some absurdity’s can arise as words can have multiple meanings, or placed in the context if you apply exactly what parliament meant then you have to include what parliament didn’t foresee. A good example of this whitely v Chappell (1868), the statue made it an offence to impersonate any person entitled to vote. The defendant used the vote of a dead men. The dead man is not entitled to vote because he’s dead. The statue for voting require a person to be living in order to be entitled to vote. The judges apply the literal rule and the defendant is acquitted. This is because he cannot possible break the law, because it required that the person must be able to vote.

General Rule

1. May lead to unexpected results, What parliament meant was to stop people voting and using others people votes to falsely vote, they missed that loop hole
2. It is always the first rule applied
3. It requires the judge to give the words of the statue there natural and ordinary dictionary meaning
4. Applied without the judge putting any gloss on it, straightforward application
5. Contrary to the rules of parliament.

R v Harris (1836)

The defendant bite of the victims nose in a fight, the statue made it an offence to stab, cut or wound, the court held that under the literal rule the act of biting did not come under meaning of stab, cut or wound as these words implied that an instrument had to be used, therefore not guilty.

One of the key reason for using the literal rule is parliament is meant to be supreme. It is parliament’s job to change statue/amend, it is the judiciary’s job to interpreted law. The literal rule, gives you a good example of where judges are demonstrating very clearly that this is parliaments intention, and that it is up to parliament to make the changes not us, because that’s what happens in a democratic society.

The Golden Rule

May be applied where an application of the literal rule would be lead to an absurdity the courts may apply a second meaning – this will avoid an absurd result.

River wear commission’s v Adamson (1876-1877)

Narrow approach

In the narrow approach is applied when the word or phrase has more than one literal meaning. This allows the judge to apply the meaning of the word that avoids the absurdity. For example season can mean summer, winter and also salt and pepper.

R v Allen (1872)

The defendant was charged with bigamy (married more than one person), the statue states “whosoever being married shall marry any other person during the lifetime of the former husband or wife is guilty of an offence” under the literal interpretation, the offence would be impossible and the reason it would be impossible is because you cannot marry somebody if you are already married (cause it’s against the law) so if you can’t marry someone a second marriage is always going to be impossible because you are not allowed to do it.  Under the literal interpretation the offence would be impossible to commit since civil law would not recognise a second marriage and any attempt to marry in such circumstances would not be recognised as a valid marriage. Through the golden rule the court applied that the word “marry” should be interpreted as to go through a marriage ceremony, therefore it didn’t matter if you were married (eg had a husband or wife ) what mattered in this sense this that marry had its other meaning. Allen’s conviction was upheld

Broad approach

The broad approach is applied when there is only one literal meaning. But applying that one literal meaning will cause an absurdity so the court will modify the meaning to avoid the absurdity.

Alder v George (1964)

In Adler v George under the official secrets act in 1920 it was an offence “to obstruct the member of the armed forces in the vicinity of a prohibited place” the defendant was actually in the prohibited place rather than “in the vicinity” at the time of the obstruction. So if you apply the literal, in the place is not the same as near the place, the court applied the golden rule, as it would be absurd that a person may be liable if they are near the place but not in it. Therefore conviction is upheld

Re Sigsworth (1935)

In this case a son murders his mum, she had not made a will and under the statue set on the law of intestacy, he was her sole air and therefore sort to inherit entire air. Applied golden rule as literal would lead to absurd result. The court said he was entitled to nothing

Consequences of Golden Rule

1. Judicial law making (judge making the decision that changes the law)
2. Narrow approach allows judges to choose between several meanings
3. Broad approach allows modification.

Mischief Rule (oldest)

The courts role to suppress the mischief the act is aimed at and advance the remedy.

Whatever an act of parliament is trying to put right then the mischief rule would aim to carry out that request. In order to make decisions using this rule you have to look at what was happening before the act of parliament. Eg what was the state of the common law before 1861 if you were dealing with a case from 1861?.