Rules of Statutory Interpretation

Rules of Statutory Interpretation 1
English Legal System and Legal Skills
Name of Student
Institution
Instructor
Date

Rules of Statutory Interpretation 2
In R (on the application of Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health (2003), Justice
Maurice Kay stated that:
‘‘the basic task of the court is to ascertain and give effect to the true meaning of
what Parliament has said in the enactment to be construed. [However] the court’s
task within the permissible bounds of interpretation is to [also] give effect to
parliament’s purpose’’
I agree with the statement by Justice Maurice Kay above. In supporting the position taken by
Justice Maurice Kay, I’ll proceed and discuss the rules of statutory interpretation and instances
where the said rules have come to play.
Rules of Statutory Interpretation
Rules of construction of statute can be said to refer to or to include legal concepts and
principles that give meaning to words and expressions used in a statute. Courts have over time
referred to these rules when faced with a question on the interpretation of a statute. They are also
referred to as canons of interpretation or construction rules. The main purpose of these rules is to
clarify and explain the meaning of a statute so as to aid understandability. There are three major
rules of statutory construction. They include;
1) The literal rule,
2) The golden rule; and
3) The mischief rule.
Other than the above major rules of construction of statute, courts have further developed other
rules such as the purposive approach.
The Literal Rule
This rule of construction of statute is to the effect that when a court of law is faced with a
question of interpretation of a statute or legislation, the court is required to interpret it in such a

Rules of Statutory Interpretation 3
way that gives the words used in statute their ordinary meaning and to apply the said common
and ordinary meaning to the circumstances and facts before them. The natural and ordinary
meaning of the words in this rule of statutory interpretation is aimed at respecting the will of the
legislature.
Literal rule of statutory interpretation has been applied by courts in a myriad of cases
such as Fisher v Bell1 where the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1959 had criminalized
the sale of some types of offensive weapons including flick knives. James Bell, who was a
Bristol shopkeeper, had put on display a certain weapon considered offensive in his shop
window. It was held by the Divisional Court that James Bell could not be convicted of displaying
the weapon by employing the use of literal rule of statutory interpretation. The court stated that
the weapon had not been offered for sale. The display only amounted to an invitation to treat
under the principles off contract law. The court stated that:
‘‘the court having discovered the supposed intention of 32 Part 1 Sources of law
Parliament must proceed to fill in the gaps – what the Legislature has not written
the court must write – and in answer to that contention Lord Simonds in his
speech said ([1952] AC 189, 191): ‘It appears to me to be a naked usurpation of
the legislative function under the thin disguise of interpretation.’’
In Literal rule therefore, the court looks at what the statute says rather than what the
words used in the statute mean or it might mean when looked at carefully. In achieving this
objective, the courts strive to give the words their ordinary everyday plain meaning even if such
interpretation produces an outcome that is undesirable or unjust. The literal rule is to the effect
1 Fisher v Bell (1960), Divisional Court