Statutory Interpretation Notes (Unit 1)

Module 1

Dajanae Dawkins

All rights reserved

🪵Rules of Interpretation (in order)

1.Literal Rule

2.Golden Rule

3.Mischief Rule

🌱1.Literal Rule

-In order to interpret a statute you must apply the ordinary natural literary dictionary meaning of the word

-if the literal meaning has no ambiguity then you must apply the literal rule (if it does, move to rule 2)

-apply this rule even if it ends to an unjust result

-precise, clear, unambiguous, ordinary, natural, dictionary, literal

Cases

*Jalousie v Labour Commissioner and The AG

*Bapitise v Alleyne

*R (the king) v Ramsonahai and Duke (of York)

*Brown v Brown

*R v Judges of London

*If rule 1 leads to ambiguity, then we go to rule 2

Shortcomings of literal rule

-words have plain ordinary meanings but it ignores their context

-dictionaries usually provide alternative meanings but it’s often ignored

🌱2.Golden Rule

-If the literal rule fails to apply because the words in their ordinary and natural meaning give rise to absurdity and/or ambiguity which parliament could not have intended then the court must apply the golden rule to substitute a reasonable meaning for the word or phrase in light of the statute as a whole

-if the literal rule is used and the ordinary meaning is ridiculous, then golden rule is used

-this is where substitution of the ambiguous words for reasonable ones are done so it makes sense

-ambiguity, absurdity, ludicrousness, unreasonable, not the intention of parliament

*Cases

Davis v The King (R)

Shortcomings of the golden rule

-since it deviates from literal meaning, may cause confusion and challenging for legal practitioners to determine the outcome of a case

-subjective because what is absurd to one judge may not be to another

🌱3.Mischief Rule

-Heydons case laid out the rule

-this is otherwise called the ‘purposive rule’

-in order to determine the mischief rule, the court considers three factors:

*What was the law before the statue was passed? (What was the original law that created the problem)

*What was the mischief or problem the old statute was trying to correct/remedy

*What remedy or solution parliament was trying to provide

*What was the reason for the remedy?

This rule is best illustrated through a case

Cases

R v George Green

Heydons Case

Shortcomings of the mischief rule

-risk of judicial law making whereby the judges make new rules according to their own views to fill the gaps in the existing laws

-time consuming as you have to scope to find the old laws, what the law was trying to remedy, the reason for the remedy and the purpose etc. It’s a lot of history that will take time to thoroughly sift through