Rules Of Interpretation

Front 1

The literal rule

Back 1

Under this rule courts give words their plain, ordinary, literal meaning, even if the result is not very sensible.

Hint 1

Dictionary

Front 2

The literal rule - case example

Back 2

In fisher v bell 1961 the defendant displayed flick knives in his shop window. He was charged under the restriction of offensive weapons act 1959. The act made it an offence to "sell or offer for sale" an offensive weapon. The act was trying to make society a safer place by making the selling of dangerous knives unlawful. However the display of goods in a shop window is not literally "an offer to sell".

Hint 2

Literally fishy

Front 3

The golden rule (broad approach)

Back 3

Where there is only one literal meaning of a word or phrase but to apply it would cause an absurdity, the court changes the meaning to avoid an absurd result. This means the court is adding new rules, in effect making law.

Hint 3

1 meaning - absurd

Front 4

The golden rule (broad approach) - case example

Back 4

In Adler v george 1964 the defendant was charged under the official secrets act 1920 with obstructing a member of the armed forces "in the vicinity of a prohibited place". The defendant argued that he was actually IN the prohibited place and not the vicinity. So therefore argued he did not break the law. To avoid an absurd result, the court interpreted the phrase "in the vicinity of a prohibited place" to include "in" a prohibited place.

Hint 4

Curious Adler

Front 5

The golden rule (narrow approach)

Back 5

Under the narrow approach of the golden rule the court may only choose between 2 or more possible meanings of a word or phrase. So when a judge uses the narrow approach to the golden rule he is really using the literal rule, but rather than the literal meaning for 1 word, he has a choice of 2 or more literal meanings of a word.

Hint 5

Literal - more options

Front 6

The golden rule (narrow approach) - case example

Back 6

This narrow view can be seen in R v Allen 1872. Section 57 of the offended against the person a g 1861 made it an offence to "marry" whilst ones original wife was still alive (and there had been no divorce). The word "marry" can mean to become "legally" married to the other person or in a more general way it can mean that the person takes part of "goes through" a ceremony of marriage. The court decided that in the offences against the person act 1961 the word has this second meaning. This is because a person who is legally married cannot legally marry anyone else. So if the first meaning of the word marry was applied then there would be the absurd situation that no one could ever be guilty of bigamy.

Hint 6

Queen v allen

Front 7

The mischief rule

Back 7

The mischief rule allows the judge to find the crime the statute was trying to control, and interpret the words in the statute so they control the crime. Therefore it gives a judge more power to use their own ideas about the meaning of words and phrases than the literal rule or the narrow approach to the golden rule.

Hint 7

Statute control

Front 8

The purposive approach

Back 8

The purposive approach focuses on what parliament intended when passing the new law. The judge asks "what was parliaments purpose when passing this statute?" And when he has that answer, he interprets the words or phrases in question before him in that context. In summary: the words and phrases of the statute are interpreted in the context of the purpose of the statute

Hint 8

Parliaments intentions

Front 9

The mischief rule - case example

Back 9

For example the crime section 1(1) of the street offences act 1959 was trying to control, was soliciting for prostitution which could affect people's use of the streets of cities. The judges in smith v Hughes 1960 interpreted the words so that any act of soliciting which affected people's enjoyment of the street would be a crime. The exact words of section 1(1) were: it shall be an offence for a common prostitute to loiter or solicit in a street or public place for the purpose of prostitution. The prostitutes had been on a balcony and behind half open windows on a ground floor room. So if the judges used the literal rule the prostitutes would have been found innocent because literally they were not "in a street" or "public place"

Hint 9

Prostitution

Front 10

European law and the purposive approach

Back 10

When European laws apply to the UK, the government creates an act that had the same effect as the European law ; in other words the UK writes its own version of European law.

Hint 10

Own version of European law

Front 11

European law and purposive approach - case example

Back 11

The human rights act 1998 is the UK version of the European convention on human rights.

Hint 11

HRA

Front 12

The purposive approach - case example

Back 12

The purposive approach can lead to justice being done where use of the literal rule may result in an unfair decision. This can be seen if we look at the case of jones v tower boot company 1997.

In this case employees harassed a mixed race coworker. The victim brought his employer to the employment tribunal using section 32 of the race relations act 1976. This meant the employer would be responsible for the behaviour of the bullies, if the victim could prove the harassment has been performed "in the course of their employment".

Hint 12

Jones v Tower Boot Company 1997