Statutory Interpretation Methods

This assignment delves into the complexities of statutory interpretation, exploring traditional rules such as the literal rule, the golden rule, and the mischief rule. It analyzes how judges apply these rules to decipher the meaning of statutes, considering potential ambiguities and absurdities. The discussion extends to the purposive approach, emphasizing the importance of understanding legislative intent behind enacted laws. Ultimately, the assignment examines the challenges and limitations of statutory interpretation within the UK legal system.

Running head: CORE LEGAL SKILLS
Core Legal Skills
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author note

1CORE LEGAL SKILLS
The literary method of Statutory Interpretation
The method of interpreting statutes by the judges is known as Statutory interpretation.
The description of statutes have been very particular with words but the respected judges will
rely and refer to the statutory interpretation for helping them. However, the words mentioned
in the statutes are considered vague and contains uncertainty. The words included in the
statute have distinguished meanings. Therefore, vagueness and uncertainty has a negative
outcome when the judges make the judgments while deciding the case.
During the development of the interpretation of any statutes, the judges must abide by
the traditional rules since it acts like their guidance while establishing the meaning of the Act
of Parliament. An Interpretation of Statutes includes a few rules that needs to be used while
making a decision. The first rule that was started is the literal rule and it is treated to be the
most convenient and less problematic method in interpretation. In the literal rule, the judges
are needed to consider what the legislation states instead of the actually meaning. In practical
sense, the judges are suppose to consider the literal meaning that have plain and simple
meaning1. However, the judges cannot alter the meaning of the statute for attaining the view
of the court. The basic and chief merit of the literal rule is that it can be fitted naturally in the
constitutional principle without creating any kind of trouble or issues2. According to the
explanation of Cross, he had determined a limitation of the literal rule. In this limitation, he
stated the judge would provide a clear and direct effect that associates with the grammar or
the technical meaning of the terms mentioned. One must also establish the limit and extent of
the words used with proper and valid reference. However, as per the formula, it can be
criticized and stated that the interpretation cannot be interpreted in proper long phrases or
sentences rather it should be interpreted in single and isolated terms. Therefore, when these
1 MacCormick, D. Neil, and Robert S. Summers. Interpreting statutes: a comparative study. Routledge, 2016.
2 Ní Mhuirthile, Tanya, Catherine O'Sullivan, and Liam Thornton. "Fundamentals of the Irish Legal System:
Law, Policy & Politics." (2016).

2CORE LEGAL SKILLS
isolated or single terms are joined together the entire meaning of the statute will have no
sense as because of the relative clear meaning. The literal rule includes a usual and simple
meaning that usually makes a clear difference between the simple and technical words
involved in the statutes along with the discretion in the judges. However, the literal rule was
not considered a good rule to follow while determining the cases since it produces only one
kind of interpretation.
Secondly, golden rule can be followed and used if the judges find difficulty and
absurdity while applying the literal rule; he might proceed with the golden rule. The actual
use of the rule states that it associates the judges to find what the judges should search what
the statute should have stated or mean instead what is already stated3. The golden rule
involves two kinds of meanings4. One being the narrow meaning and the other one is wider.
The golden rule breaches the separation of power where there is no such clear difference. In
case of absurdity issues, there might be injustice while taking the decisions. Lastly, mischief
rule can be used and implied if neither the literal rule nor the golden rule is applicable. It is
considered to be the most flexible rule that can resolve the problem of the judges5. The
mischief rule can only be used when there is uncertainty in the cases. However, even this rule
has a few demerits as it indirectly makes the judges to have the role to make the law.
Therefore, the separation of power can be voided in certain situations.
In the concept of statutory interpretation, there are two existing approaches that are
purposive and literal. The aim of both the approaches are that it establishes how the judges
can state and determine the meaning of statute6. The purposive approach is generally used
3 Anstis, Siena, and Thomas Touchie. "REVISITING THE ROLE OF PRESUMPTIONS OF LEGISLATIVE
INTENT IN STATUTORY INTERPRETATION." Canadian Bar Review 95.2 (2017).
4 Gluck, Abbe R., and Richard A. Posner. "Statutory Interpretation on the Bench: A Survey of Forty-Two
Judges on the Federal Courts of Appeals." (2018).
5 Feldman, David. "Statutory Interpretation and Constitutional Legislation." (2014).
6 Brenncke, Martin. "Hybrid Methodology for the EU Principle of Consistent Interpretation." Statute Law
Review (2017): hmw048.

3CORE LEGAL SKILLS
while interpreting the statutes instead of the literal approach. This kind of approach rejects on
the limitations of the judges while looking for the literal meaning of the word in the
legislation. With the help of this approach, the judges are enabling to look beyond the words
mentioned in the statute for the reason of enactment. In such jurisdictions, the legislation sets
out the principles and the details are left for the judges to fulfill the gaps7. Therefore, for the
judges to interpret clearly, one must try to understand as to how the Parliament had passed
the statute from which the judges will be able to decide the purpose of enactment of the
statute.
It can be stated that United Kingdom includes plenty of rules in the statutory
interpretation but neither of them were successful enough to decrease the problem. Therefore,
there will always be a level of uncertainty and injustice even when the rules are followed.
These rules help the judges to develop the process of creative thinking as it will be applied
theoretically. Judges are not supposed to make law but in case of the mischief and golden
rule, it helps to expand such kind of issue since it is unpredictable8. Thereafter, there was a
dramatic change in the system of United Kingdom. The actual purpose of the statute will not
remain if the judges have no option to alter it.
It can be concluded stating that the basic and principal objective of the statutory
interpretation was to assist the judges so that they can interpret on the purpose of the act. It
does not have a written constitution and the Parliament is treated to be the superior most.
However, statutory interpretation have been misused over the years whereas on the other
hand, the original aim or purpose of it was that the Parliament wanted to apply. United
Kingdom was losing the power while ruling the nation. Therefore, United Kingdom always
lies in confusion while dealing with the rules that are related to the statutory interpretation.
7 MacCormick, D. Neil, and Robert S. Summers. Interpreting statutes: a comparative study. Routledge, 2016.
8 Bajčić, Martina. "The way forward for court interpreting in Europe." Language and culture in EU law:
multidisciplinary perspectives. Ashgate, Farnham (2015): 219-238.

4CORE LEGAL SKILLS

5CORE LEGAL SKILLS
References:
Anstis, Siena, and Thomas Touchie. "REVISITING THE ROLE OF PRESUMPTIONS OF
LEGISLATIVE INTENT IN STATUTORY INTERPRETATION." Canadian Bar
Review 95.2 (2017).
Bajčić, Martina. "The way forward for court interpreting in Europe." Language and culture in
EU law: multidisciplinary perspectives. Ashgate, Farnham (2015): 219-238.
Brenncke, Martin. "Hybrid Methodology for the EU Principle of Consistent
Interpretation." Statute Law Review (2017): hmw048.
Feldman, David. "Statutory Interpretation and Constitutional Legislation." (2014).
Gluck, Abbe R., and Richard A. Posner. "Statutory Interpretation on the Bench: A Survey of
Forty-Two Judges on the Federal Courts of Appeals." (2018).
MacCormick, D. Neil, and Robert S. Summers. Interpreting statutes: a comparative study.
Routledge, 2016.
MacCormick, D. Neil, and Robert S. Summers. Interpreting statutes: a comparative study.
Routledge, 2016.
Ní Mhuirthile, Tanya, Catherine O'Sullivan, and Liam Thornton. "Fundamentals of the Irish
Legal System: Law, Policy & Politics." (2016).