Essay: What is statutory interpretation?

Statutory Interpretation is a term referring to the judges’ interpretation of the wording and meaning of statue. The term statutory interpretation covers a process, where statue is created, the judge then interprets the statue and finally applies their interpretation to the case they are dealing with.
To help a judge interpret the meaning and wording of the statue there are a number of aids and rules they can refer to, no rule is higher than another and it is completely at the judge’s discretion which, if any they use. Judges are not bound by any of these tools they are there purely for guidance, justification and clarification so a judge can then apply their interpretation to a specific case.
The aids available to a judge are Internal and External aids. Internal aids include explanatory notes within the state itself, presumptions and rules of language. External aids include dictionaries, treaties, reports and pre-parliamentary material as well as referring to the Human Rights Act which gives UK residents, amongst other things, the right to a fair trial.
As stated earlier as well as aids there are four recognised ‘rules’ available to assist judges, these are ‘the literal rule’, ‘the golden rule’, ‘the mischief rule’ and ‘the purposive approach’.
The literal rule is where the court will look at the actual wording used within the statue and the simple, common definition of the word is what is considered, rather than what the wording could mean or maybe referring to. Although this does not take into account that the English language can often be ambiguous, with one word having several meanings. The Whiteley v Chappell, 1868 (OU 2015, 4.1) case shows how applying the literal rule gave an unjust result because the accused had done something wrong although the wording of Act taken literally meant he got acquitted.
The Golden Rule follows on from the literal rule by giving the court permission to deviate from the basic meaning of the word if using the basic meaning provides an unfair, unjust result. The problem this rule throws up is it is again at a judge’s discretion as to what they feel is unjust or absurd. This can compromise consistency as one judge may have different opinions to another giving different outcomes on similar cases.
The Alder v George 1964 (OU 2015, 4.2) case shows the court extending the literal wording of the Official Secrets Act (1920), presuming when the Act was worded it was intended to protect the RAF station as well as the surrounding area and there for applying that presumption to the case.
The mischief rule is the most flexible of all the rules. When clarity is needed the court can look at the law before the statue was created and examine the gap it was intended to bridge. Again, this rule also gives the courts authorisation to deviate from the actual wording and interpret the words as the judge see’s appropriate. The mischief rule is more logical than all the other rules as it allows the court to consider changes and developments in society that have become relevant only after the statue was originally created and in turn the court can deliver justice.
The Smith v Hughes 1960 (OU 2015, 4.3) shows when looking at the law before the statue was created the public was not protected from soliciting on the streets. Presuming the Street offences Act 1959 was introduced to protect the general public from being exposed to soliciting the wording of the Act was extended and applied as the court felt Parliament had intended.
The purposive approach continues from the mischief rule as the judge considers what Parliament was trying to achieve when enacting the statue.
R (Quintavalle) v Secretary of state for health 2003 (OU 2015, 4.4) shows the court had to examine what Parliament was trying to achieve when creating the statue to protect ‘live human embryos’. The literal wording stated ‘after fertilisation’ but if an embryo was created without fertilisation the court presumed Parliament would have protected those embryos also.
Again this rule enables the judge to come to their own conclusion on how the statue should be applied to a particular case.
All the rules have advantages and disadvantages. Individuals interpretations will always compromise consistency as the result comes down to a degree of opinion but if diverging from the wording of the statue was not allowed statues would need to consider every eventuality, circumstance and situation and this is not realistic. All statues would need also need constantly updating.
Question 2
The common law system in the UK is based on case or judge made law. This entails previous decisions or outcomes of similar cases being considered and applied to present cases surrounded by the same or similar circumstances. This is referred to a precedent or judicial precedent.
The common law system of judicial precedent works within a hierarchical system where lower courts, such as crown court and county court, are not only bound by previous decisions but also the decisions of higher courts. The binding of a lower court by a decision of a higher court if referred to as stare decisis. Although all case law can be overruled by statute.
The term ratio decidendi, meaning the reason for the decision, if the part of the outcome that binds the court, this will be documented in law reports along with the final decision and make available for future use and reference. Judges can then compare to the case they are dealing with and speculate if necessary what the decision would entail if circumstances differed, this is referred to as obiter dictum and is not binding although the statements can be used in a persuasive manner and put to judges to consider.
Question 2 (b)
1. The Crown Court must be bound by the previous decisions of the Supreme Court, due to the hierarchical positions of these courts within the UK law system, where lower courts are bound by the higher courts.
2. The court of appeal would not be bound by the previous case being presented as the judge of the Supreme Court had speculated and considered the circumstance of a red hat with green spots, these comments are known as Obiter Dictum, although included in the law report for the case this information is not binding.
3. The Court of Appeal is a higher court than The Crown Court and is not bound by the case being presented although it will consider the case when making a decision.