Statutory Interpretation: Rules and Application

This assignment delves into the fundamental principles of statutory interpretation in law. It examines various rules used by courts to determine the meaning of legislation, including literal rule, golden rule, mischief rule, and purposive approach. Key case studies such as Pepper v Hart, Fisher v Bell, and London and North Eastern Railway v Berriman are analyzed to illustrate the application of these rules. The assignment also touches upon the separation of powers and judicial review in the context of statutory interpretation.

Running Head: Law 1
Law

Law 2
Introduction:
The legal system of United Kingdom were actually based on the law made by the judge (law
developed by the decision made by the judges in the previous case laws, which is known as
common law or case law) till the time period of 17th Century. Each jurisdiction has power to
develop own forms of common law. From that time, new laws and policies were introduced
through Acts of Parliament, and these Acts were actually inspired by the policies of the present
government. It must be noted that, till today development of case laws are considered as
important source of law. In other words, statement made by judges while deciding any case
becomes binding on later judges, and in this way it becomes the law.
From last few years, rules of statutory interpretation had been attacked for being worthless and
harmful. The main aim of this paper is to critically evaluate the interpretation of statutory rules in
UK. This paper also considers the value of these rules and possible changes which can be done I
these rules. The importance of this topic is considerable because main function of modern
appellate courts includes the interpretation of statutes, and it is also considered as conventional
for Courts to make use of the rules while making interpretation of statutes (Street, 2013).
Structure of this paper includes various topics such as whether statutory principles ensures
fairness and consistency, whether judges play constitutional role while applying rules of
statutory interpretation, and what changes can be done in the rules of interpretation. Lastly, paper
is concluded with brief conclusion which summarizes the important facts of the paper.
Rules of statutory interpretation:
Statutory interpretation is considered as action of the Court for the purpose of understanding and
explaining the meaning of the legislation. There are number of cases which are appealed because

Law 3
of the interpretation. In this purpose, Lord Hailsham, a senior English judge stated “almost 9 out
of 10 cases decided by Court of Appeal and the House of Lords involve issue related to meaning
of words contained in statute or secondary legislation.” Judges use three rules for interpreting the
statutes and these rules are stated below:
 Golden Rule: this rule is considered as exception of the literal rule, and under this rule
judges used the meaning of the words. This rule is applied when literal meaning
contradicts the intention of the parliament. This can be understood through case law Grey
v. Pearson (1857) 6 HL Cas 1. In this case, Court held that ordinary meaning of the
words was modified for the purpose of avoiding absurdity. There is one more case law
Keene v. Muncaster 1980. In this case, Court stated it was necessary to request the
permission from the defendant.
 Literal rule: Literal rule is also known as ordinary meaning rule and plain meaning rule.
In this rule, Court gives literal meaning to the words of the statute without considering
whether it provides any sensible meaning or not. This can be understood through case
law Whitley v. Chappell [1868] 4 LRQB 147. In this case, Court applied the literal
meaning of the statute and stated that there was no fault of defendant. There is one more
case law R. C. v. Hinchy 1960 (note Pepper v. Hart 1992). In this case, Court held that it
was possible to take the intention of the parliament from the words they enacted in the
Act.
 Mischief rule: final rule of statutory interpretation is the mischief rule. In this rule, judge
tries to determine the intention of legislature. In other words, what is the “mischief and
defect” that the statute in question has set out to remedy, and what ruling would
effectively implement this remedy? (Translegal, n.d.).

Law 4
Fairness and consistency through the principles of statutory
interpretation:
The rules of statutory interpretation have been attacked for various reasons such as being
inconsistent, uncertain, and undesirable in both the manner as what they defined and how they
are applied by the courts. These attacks directly imposed on the rules, but other attacks include
specific types of rule only such as literal rule and those rules which are stated by extrinsic aids in
the process of interpretation. If effect of statute is not predictable in nature then no options are
available which stated in advance that what rules court choose to follow or ignore. It can be said
that rules of interpretation can be considered as bag of tricks from which court pick rules which
are respectable-sounding for the purpose of justify any result that is desired by the judges. Rules
of interpretation also provide shield to the judges behind whom judges can be protected for the
purpose of avoiding carefully thinking from the solutions related to the problems before them
and also for not providing the justification in context of their decision. This approach encourages
the laziness and hypocrisy on the side of judges (Johnstone, 1954).
Under literal meaning rule, the words of the statute are understood in their ordinary and actual
meaning. These rules were read literally and there is no need to analyze these rules for
determining any different meaning. In other words, it considered the plain words of the
legislation. This can be understood through case law London and North Eastern Railway v
Berriman [1946] AC 278. In this case, a railway worker was killed while doing oiling at the
railway track, and there was no look at point. Court held that compensation was not granted to
Mrs. Berriman for the death of her husband because relevant act stated that compensation was
granted to only those workers who were ‘relaying’ or ‘repairing’ the line, and act of oiling did
not fell in any of these activities. This result was very harsh and unjust. Court further stated that
it was not possible to apply golden rule because meaning was not absurd (Catalogue, n.d.).

Law 5
In recent years, literal meaning rule had been criticized for various reasons such as for its
inconsistent usage and on the reason that nothing exists like plain meaning. In other words,
words used in the statute are ambiguous in nature which means no statute can be plain. Courts
rely on the literal meaning rule are actually rationalizing their decisions which were depends on
the other reasons. Another reason is that most statutes enacted by parliament are ambiguous in
nature because these statutes are referred to broad, general classes of things. Class terms are not
certain in regards to their border-line meanings, and because of this it can be said that they are
not certain as they fail to specify the particulars which fall in or out of the class. The broadest of
general class, there is more scope of uncertainty. All the possible particulars which are stated in
the general class rarely incorporated in the statute. Therefore, it can be said that most statutes
which are interpreted by using literal rule and including class terms are ambiguous in nature.
Experts criticize the use of literal rule on the ground that literal meaning of the statute is used on
the expense of basic purpose of Act. In this case, Court stated that basic purpose of the
legislature must be controlled by the words used in the statute (Benwell & Gay, n.d.).
There is one more case law Fisher v Bell (1960), Divisional Court, in this case Lord Parker CJ
stated that no offense was committed but still for justifying the literal rule and casus ommisus,
defendant was accused. Casus omisus can also understand through case law United States ex.
reI. Coy v. United States, 316 U.S. 342 (1942) and Mitchell v. Mitchell, 312, Mass. 154, 43
N.E.2d 783 (1942).
Literal rule is also attacked on the ground that plain meaning must be stated on the intention of
the legislature and must be find and followed on the basis of interpreting statutes. These attacks
are similar to those attacks which are made on literal rule on the ground that courts use the intent
rule in unpredicted way, and they also deny that legislative intent is something or does something

Law 6
if it exists. Therefore, it can be said that literal rule does not ensures fairness in the decisions
taken by the Court.
Constitutional role played by the judges:
Application related to precedent of judges is considered as main mechanism through which
judges made the law. Generally, judges also faced situations when they have to make ruling or
decision when no precedents or any guiding are available line related to that matter. In such
situations, judges required to make original precedent by using their own jurisdiction regarding
what judge thinks in context of rules need to be applied, changed, improved, or abolished. This
can be understood through case law A.G v Butterwort, and in this case Lord Denning stated that:
“All these things were only stated in the books, but if these things were real then sooner we made
things better”.
It must be noted that, those statutes which produce litigation acknowledges number of readings.
This can be said in the context that why people come to the Court with those cases which are
clear. People generally take case to the court when words of the statutes are not clear, conflict,
and words are so old that one clear meaning is not fit in the language and legal culture of the
statute. No simple approach related to these principles is sensible in nature because words are not
provided with meanings. Words get their meaning from context of different other words, social
conventions, and the problems addressed by authors. Text is directed for the purpose of making
appeal to the communities of listeners and we use them purposively, and it must be noted that
purpose of the readers and the meaning will change with the time (Easterbrook, 2004).
For the purpose of assisting the judges while interpreting the statutes, various aids are exists
which can be used by the judges. It must be noted that aids related to statutory interpretation are

Law 7
divided into internal and external aids and sometimes it is also called as intrinsic aids and
extrinsic aids to interpretation. Internal aids are those aids which are defined by the statute itself,
and it includes long title of the Act, Explanatory notes, other sections of the Act, and definition
sections in the Act. External aids includes dictionaries, text books, academic writings, law
commission reports, case laws related to other jurisdictions, Hansard.
It must be noted that Hansard is not considered by judges, but this situation has been changed in
case law Pepper v Hart [1992] 3 WLR 1032 House of Lords. In this case, Court stated that
those days have been passed when Court consider the literal approach. Now, Courts used
purposive approach, under which judges give effect to the purpose for which legislation has been
introduced. Court also give look to the material that bears upon the background against which the
legislation was enacted.
In case statutes are ambiguous in nature, and it is reasonable for those agencies which exercise
their discretion while interpreting the statutes, if no right answer is present in this context then
why can’t judges apply the same approach as agencies applied. This can be understood through
case law United States v. Mead Corp, if statute is addressed to judges then judges has discretion
while interpreting the statute, and if statute is addressed to agencies then agencies has discretion
while interpreting the statute.
While applying the approach related to textualist interpretation, then it can be considered that
judges are the agents of the legislative decisions – and it considered no less applicable to the
agencies also. Under Article II, president and staff are supposed to execute the law in faithful
manner, and does not manipulate the law. If this discretionary principle is ok then officers under

Law 8
Article II then why this similar approach is not applicable on officers appointed under Article
IIhI. However, it must be noted that any interpretation made by judges
After considering the above facts, it can be said that discretion of judges while interpreting the
statutes can use above mentioned resources and aids. However, judges must ensure that
interpretation made by them must be compatible with the European Convention on Human rights
(ECHR). Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 states that it is the duty of judges to read all
the primary and secondary legislation in such way as it is compatible with the ECHR. Therefore,
it can be said that section or legislation has more than one meaning but Court must interpret the
statute in compatible with the ECHR and in such manner as it ensures fairness and equality. This
interpretive approach overrides the common law because this approach is developed parliament.
But it does not make the approach related to common law redundant.
Changes that can be made in rules:
As stated while making the interpretation, judges must not apply their own discretion, but
considered various other factors such as whether interpretation made by them ensures fairness
and consistency. For this purpose it is necessary to increase the obligation of judges when they
are interpreting the statute.
Government must ensure that while interpreting the statute, judges does not contradicts the actual
intention of the legislature. For this purpose, governments can form committee or department
under which judges can report their reasons and justification regarding their interpretations.
Judges must consider the factor of equity and fairness while interpreting the statute, and also
ensure that their interpretation compatible with the ECHR. Government must ensure that
interpretive approach overrides the common law because this approach is developed parliament.

Law 9
Government can also make the procedure through which judges interpret the law, or they can
make the remedial provisions if judges fail to meet the intention of the legislature.
Conclusion:
It is clear from the above facts that section or legislation has more than one meaning but Court
must interpret the statute in compatible with the ECHR and in such manner as it ensures fairness
and equality. This interpretive approach overrides the common law because this approach is
developed parliament. But it does not make the approach related to common law redundant.
Therefore, Courts used purposive approach; under which judges give effect to the purpose for
which legislation has been introduced. Court also gives look to the material that bears upon the
background against which the legislation was enacted.
References:
Attorney-general v Butterworth: CA 1962.
Benwell, R. & Gay, O. The Separation of Powers. Retrieved on 7th November 2017 from:
https://www.google.co.in/url?
sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjMpefEgK7XAh

Law 10
WEtI8KHfBpDoMQFghPMAc&url=http%3A%2F%2Fresearchbriefings.files.parliament.uk
%2Fdocuments%2FSN06053%2FSN06053.pdf&usg=AOvVaw09tEGQ3s_Mdh_B4KgLWwq8.
Catalogue. Statutory interpretation. Retrieved on 7th November 2017 from:
https://catalogue.pearsoned.co.uk/assets/hip/gb/hip_gb_pearsonhighered/samplechapter/ELS_C
%20and%20M_Chap%203.pdf.
Easterbrook, F. (2004). Judicial Discretion in Statutory Interpretation. Retrieved on 7th
November 2017 from: http://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=2136&context=journal_articles.
Fisher v Bell (1960), Divisional Court.
Grey v. Pearson (1857) 6 HL Cas 1
Johnstone, Q. (1954). An Evaluation of the Rules of Statutory Interpretation. Retrieved on 7th
November 2017 from: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=2967&context=fss_papers.
Justice. Law for lawmakers. Retrieved on 7th November 2017 from:
https://2bquk8cdew6192tsu41lay8t-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Law-
for-lawmakers-EMAIL.pdf.
Keene v. Muncaster 1980.
London and North Eastern Railway v Berriman [1946] AC 278.
Mitchell v. Mitchell, 312, Mass. 154, 43 N.E.2d 783 (1942).
Pepper v Hart [1992] 3 WLR 1032 House of Lords.
R. C. v. Hinchy 1960 (note Pepper v. Hart 1992)
Street, A. (2013). Judicial Review and the Rule of Law. Retrieved on 7th November 2017 from:
https://www.consoc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/J1446_Constitution_Society_Judicial_R
eview_WEB-22.pdf.
Translegal. The rules of statutory interpretation (2). Retrieved on 7th November 2017 from:
https://www.translegal.com/lesson/statutory-interpretation-2.
United States ex. reI. Coy v. United States, 316 U.S. 342 (1942)
Whitley v. Chappell [1868] 4 LRQB 147.

Law 11