1. Today’s Lesson
Objectives for the lesson to have a thorough understanding of:
• What statutory interpretation is
• The literal rule
• The golden rule
• The mischief rule
What is it?
As seen in previous week, many statutes are passed by parliament each year. The meaning of
the law in these statutes should be clear and explicit, but this is not always the case. In order
to help with the understanding of a statute Parliament sometimes includes sections defining
certain words use in that statute: such sections are called interpretation sections.
The Theft act 1968
In the theft act 1968, for example, the definition of ‘theft’ is given in section one, and then
sections two and six define the key words in that definition. To help the judges with general
words, parliament has also passed the interpretation act 1978 which makes it clear that,
unless the contrary appears, ‘he’ includes ‘she’, and singular includes plural.
Parliament passes statutes and judges must interpret and apply them in court. Where the
meanings of words are unclear, judges will apply one of the various rules of interpretation.
These rules were developed in the following ways:
• The literal rule
• The golden rule
• The mischief rule
• The purposive approach
The need for statutory interpretation
Many cases come before the courts because these is a dispute over the meaning of an act of
parliament. In such cases the court’s task is to decide the exact meaning of a particular word
or phrase. There are many reasons why the meaning may be unclear, these include:
• Words are an imperfect means of communication
• Words very often have more than one meaning i.e. they can be ambiguous
• A broad term may be used in a statute which can give rise to confusion and uncertainty
• There may be errors or omissions when the statute is drafted
• New developments in society can make the words used in a statute out of date and they
may no longer cover the current situation

2. Task
The Literal Rule
The literal rule says the intention of Parliament is best found in the ordinary natural meaning
of the words used. In R v Judge of the City of London 1892, Lord Esher said that:
‘If the words of the Act are clear, the court must follow them
even though they lead to a manifest absurdity. The court has
nothing to do with the question whether the legislature has
committed an absurdity.’

3. Task
For each of the cases below, you must research using the textbook and other information
given to you and write in what exactly happened in the case and the interpretation that
occurred:
Whiteley v Chappell 1868
London & North-Eastern Railway v Berriman 1946
Some other cases using the literal rule are described below, however, the two main ones are
above.
Fisher v Bell 1960
A shopkeeper displayed in his window a flick knife with a price ticket, and was prosecuted for
"offering for sale" an offensive weapon contrary to the Restriction of Offensive Weapons
Act 1959. The High Court said the phrase "offer for sale" was to be taken literally, in
accordance with its meaning in contract law, and that D's display of the weapon was no more
than an invitation to treat.
R v Reynolds 1981
D was convicted on three counts of theft, by a majority verdict in each case. Section 17(3) of
the Juries Act 1974 says that the court "shall not accept a majority verdict unless the
foreman has stated in open court the number of jurors who respectively agreed to and
dissented from the verdict". In D's case the foreman had said (for each count) that ten
jurors agreed, but did not say how many dissented. The Court of Appeal said the Act was to
be read literally, and quashed D's convictions. [The decision was subsequently overruled by
the House of Lords in R v Pigg [1983] 1 All ER 56.]
Khan v Commissioner of Police 2008
Under s.18 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 as amended, the police have power to
enter and search without a warrant any premises occupied or controlled by a person under
arrest. In this case an arrested suspect falsely gave K's home address as his own, and the
police searched K's premises. Upholding the judge's award of £1250 damages to K for
trespass to property, the Court of Appeal said there was no reason to depart from the literal

4. meaning of the words in the Act. If Parliament had intended the power to be exercisable on
"reasonable belief", they could have said so (as in fact they had done in other sections of the
Act).
The literal rule has both advantages and disadvantages. Constitutionally, it respects
parliamentary supremacy and the right of Parliament to make any laws it might wish, no matter
how absurd they might seem. It also ensures that anyone who can read English can determine
the law, whether or not they have any legal knowledge, and thus promotes certainty and
reduces litigation. On the other hand, it fails to recognise that the English language is
sometimes ambiguous - words may have different meanings in different contexts - and it does
sometimes lead to absurdities and loopholes that can be exploited by wholly unmeritorious
litigants.
The Golden Rule
The golden rule says that if the literal rule produces an absurdity, the court should look for
another meaning of the words that avoids the absurd result. In River Wear Commissioners v
Adamson (1877) LR 2 AC 743 Lord Blackburn said the golden rule is that to take the whole of
the statute together, giving the words their ordinary signification, unless when so applied
they produce an inconsistency or absurdity or inconvenience so great as to convince the court
that the intention could not have been to use them in their ordinary signification, and to
justify the court in putting on them some other signification which, though less proper, is one
which the court thinks the words will bear.
There are two views on how far the golden rule should be used. The first is very narrow and is
shown by Lord Reid’s comments in Jones v DPP (1962) when he said:
“It is a cardinal principle applicable to all kinds of statutes that
you may not for any reason attach to a statutory provision a
meaning which the words of that provision cannot reasonably
bear. If they are capable of more than one meaning, then you can
choose between those meanings, but beyond this you cannot go.”
So under narrow application of the golden rule the court may only choose between the possible
meanings of a word or phrase. If there is only one meaning then that must be taken.
The second and wider application of the golden rule is where the words have only one clear
meaning, but that meaning would lead to a repugnant situation (that is a situation in which the
court feels that using the clear meaning would produce a result which should not be allowed).
In such a case the court will invoke the golden rule to modify the words of the statute in
order to avoid the problem.
Task
For the case below, you must research using the textbook and other information given to you
and write in what exactly happened in the case and the interpretation that occurred:
R v Allen 1872

5. Some other cases using the literal rule are described below, however, the two main ones are
above.
Ruther v Harris 1876
The Salmon Fishery Act 1861 provided that if salmon poachers were caught then the bailiff
could confiscate "all fish taken and any net used in taking the same". In an action based on
such a seizure, the judge said this should be taken to allow the confiscation of nets even
where the poachers had been apprehended before they had actually caught any fish.
Adler v George 1964
A protester A was convicted by magistrates of obstructing a sentry "in the vicinity of a
prohibited place", contrary to s.3 of the Official Secrets Act 1920. He appealed on the
grounds that since he was actually inside the prohibited place at the time he could not be in
its vicinity. The High Court dismissed his appeal: it would be extraordinary, said Lord
Parker CJ, if the statute created a serious offence when obstruction occurred just outside a
RAF station but no offence at all when it occurred inside. The words "in the vicinity of"
should be construed as meaning "in or in the vicinity of".
R v Samuel [1988] 2 All ER 135, DC
A man D was charged with robbery, and his solicitors challenged the admissibility of a
statement he had made before being allowed access to a solicitor. Annex B.1 to Code C
(issued by the Home Secretary under s.66 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984)
provides that the right to consult a solicitor may be delayed under certain circumstances if
the prisoner has not yet been charged with an offence: D had been charged with burglary,
but not with the robbery to which the statement related. The Crown argued that the Code
should be interpreted as meaning only this offence, otherwise a person held on a serious
charge could secure access to a solicitor by confessing to a minor one. Hodgson J
dismissed this argument, saying that the golden rule can be invoked only where a literal
interpretation leads to a clear absurdity, not where (as here) it merely causes
inconvenience to those having to apply the provisions.
Advantages to the golden rule
It respects the exact words of parliament except in limited situations. It allows the judge to
choose the most sensible meaning where there is more htan one meaning. It can also
provide sensible decisions in cases where the literal rule would lea to a repugnant situation.
Disadvntages to the golden rule
It is very limited in its use and can only be used in certain cases. Another problem is that it
is not always possible to predcit when courts will use the golden rule. It is often described
as an escape route for judges.
The Mischief rule

6. This rule gives the judge more discretion than the other two rules. The definition of the rule
comes from Heydon’s case (1584), where it was said that there were four points the court
chould consider. These, in the original language of that old case, were:
1. what was the common law before the making of the act?
2. what was the mischief and defect for which common law did not provide?
3. what was the remedy the Parliament hath resolved and appointed to cure
disease of the commonwealth
4. the true reason of the remedy. Then the office of all judges is always to make
sure construction a shall surpress the mischief and advance the remedy.
In other words:
1. What was the law before Statute?
2. What’s wrong with the Law?
3. How does Parliament intend to correct it?
4. Apply the Statute in context to the case?
The mischief rule requires the court to take into account the gap in the law that the statute
was intended to fill, and interpret it to "suppress the mischief" Parliament intended to
remedy.
Task
For the case below, you must research using the textbook and other information given to you
and write in what exactly happened in the case and the interpretation that occurred:
Smith v Hughes 1960
Other cases include:
Elliott v Grey 1959
A man A appealed against his conviction for using a motor car on a road without a valid
insurance policy, contrary to s.35(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1930. The car was parked
outside A's house; it had broken down some months before, the engine would not work,
and there was no petrol in the tank. A had therefore cancelled his insurance, but said (and
this was accepted) that he would have renewed it before driving the car again. The High
Court affirmed his conviction: Lord Parker CJ said the mischief was the protection of third
parties, so "use" should be taken to mean "have the use of". Quite apart from the fact that
another vehicle had collided with the stationary car, it was on a hill and could have rolled
away if someone had let the brake off.
Alphacell v Woodward 1972

7. A company AA were convicted under s.2(1)(a) of the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951
of polluting a river. AA were unaware causing this pollution, and there was no evidence of
negligence on their part, but their conviction was upheld by the House of Lords. Where a
penal statute is capable of two or more meanings. said Lord Salmon, the meaning most
favourable to the subject should be adopted, but this did not mean that the word "knowingly"
or "negligently" should be implied before "causes". It is of the utmost importance that rivers
should not be polluted, and if no conviction could be secured unless the prosecution could
discharge the often impossible burden of proving the pollution had been caused intentionally
or negligently, a great deal of pollution would go unpunished and undeterred, and rivers would
become even filthier.
Whittaker v Campbell 1983
Two brothers hired a van by producing a driving licence belonging to another; in fact neither
of them held a full licence. They were convicted of taking a conveyance without the consent
of the owner, and appealed by way of case stated. Allowing the appeal, Robert Goff LJ applied
the "mischief rule" and said s.12 of the Theft Act 1968 was clearly directed against joyriding,
not against fraud.
Advanatges and Disadvantages to the mischief rule
The mischief rule is regarded by most modern commentators as the best of the three rules,
giving effect as it does to the true intention of Parliament. Its disadvantages are that there
is really no such thing as "the intention of Parliament", that determining Parliament's supposed
intention requires the use of a wide range of aids and presumptions, and that the uncertainty
of this approach tends to promote litigation between parties contending for opposite
intentions. It allows Judges to put into effect Parliament wishes and avoids Parliament
rewriting laws. It was developed when Statutes were a minor source of Law; Drafting was not
precise and Parliamentary Supremacy was established. However, it means that judges can
rewrite Statute Law, which only Parliament is allowed to do and it must be possible to discover
the mischief in order for the rule to be used.
Question
Key Facts