This document provides an overview of statutory interpretation rules, including the literal rule and golden rule. It defines the literal rule as giving words their ordinary meaning where possible. The golden rule aims to modify the meaning to avoid absurd outcomes, using either a narrow or wide approach. It discusses cases where the literal rule led to absurd outcomes, necessitating the golden rule. It also covers difficulties in applying the golden rule, such as deciding what constitutes an absurdity. The homework assigns practicing an exam question on the golden rule case R v Allen and researching criticisms of the golden rule.

1. Statutory Interpretation
03.02.2012

2. Lesson Objectives
All learners will be able to:
Understand what the literal rule is.
Understand the definition of the golden rule.
Most learners will be able to:
Demonstrate understanding of cases in
relation to rules
Some learners will be able to:
Apply the golden rule to various sources.

3. HOMEWORK!
Hand in your practice answer to exam question. Failure
to hand in an answer, will result in an incomplete
task on progress report.

4. Name the problems with interpreting
statutes (3 mins)
• Language is not a precise tool.
• The meaning of words changes over time.
• The drafting of the legislation might have been
hurried.
• Unlike a conversation between two people, there
is no recourse to the original speaker when the
problem arises.
These are the reasons why judges need to
interpret statutes using different rules.

5. What is the Euisdem generis rule?
Definition: where list is followed by general phrase.
Example?
Powell v Kempton Park Racecourse (1899):
The words ‘other place’ were held to mean ‘other
indoor place’ because the list referred to a
‘house, office, room or other place’ and ‘house’,
‘office’ and ‘room’ are all indoors.

6. Extrinsic & Intrinsic Aids?
DEFINITIONS??
• Matters outside of the Act which
Extrinsic may be used to aid meaning of
wording.
Aids • dictionaries, precedent, historical
meaning
• Those part of the Act which may
Intrinsic help to make the meaning clear.
• The title, preamble, definition
Aids schedules

7. What is the Literal Rule?
Giving the words their ordinary natural
meaning wherever such words are capable of
a literal meaning.
What happened in Fisher v Bell? Was he
liable? How did the literal rule apply to the
law and case?

8. Case:
A shopkeeper displayed in his shop window flick knives
with a price ticket behind it.
The Law:
Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1951 – convict
people who offer knives for sale . The Act intended to
reduce the number of dangerous weapons available.
Defendant was initially charged, however on appeal he
was acquitted because:
He had not technically ‘offered’ the knives for sale,
because under contract law, his display was an
invitation to treat and it was the customers who were
making the offers.

9. Dis/Advantages of Literal Rule
In small groups think of the advantages and
disadvantages of the LITERAL rule. Make
notes.
(5 mins)

10. ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
Restricts the role of the judge There can be disagreement as to
what amounts to the ordinary or
natural meaning:
Provides no scope for judges to use Creates awkward precedents which
their own opinions or prejudices require Parliamentary time to correct
Recognises Parliament as the Fails to recognise the complexities
supreme law maker and limitations of English language
Undermines public confidence in the
law
Creates loopholes in the law:
Leads to injustice

11. Why might another rule arise?
Sometimes when the literal rule was applied, the result would lead
to absurd interpretations- this was not the judges aim!
R v Harris (1836)
Law: It was a statutory offence ‘unlawfully and maliciously….to stab,
cut or wound any person’.
Judgement: Harris was held not to have committed this offence by
biting off the end of a persons nose, because the words read
literally, indicated the use of an instrument.
So Harris is not guilty of maliciously wounding when applying the
literal rule. However, this seems absurd because the victim was
maliciously wounded regardless of the instrument used.

12. Golden Rule
The golden rule aims to adapt the meaning of the
words in the Parliament Act, in order to not reach an
absurd decision.
There are 2 approaches: Narrow and Wide.
The court will always start off with the literal approach,
however, if this fails to make sense, the golden rule will
be applied.
This rule was explained in the following case:

13. Narrow and Wide Approaches
Narrow: the courts will choose between the
best of two alternative meanings.
Wide: modifies the outcome to avoid an
absurd outcome. (R v Allen, make note)

14. The River Wear Commissioners v
Anderson (1877) – IMP CASE!
Lord Blackburn:
‘We are to take the whole of the statute
together and construe it, giving the words
their ORDINARY signification, unless when so
applied they produce inconsistency so great as
to convince the court otherwise…and justify
the court putting on some OTHER
signification, which though less proper, in one
the courts think the words will bear’.

15. Activity
Apply the literal rule firstly to this case. Would the
Defendant be guilty?
Law:
You cannot obstruct a member of HM forces engaged in
security duty in the vicinity of a prohibited place.
Adler v George (1964)
Adler gained access to a RAF station (a prohibited place
within the meaning of the Official Secrets Act 1920) and
was actually within its boundaries. He obstructed a
member of Her Majesty's forces engaged in security duty in
relation to the station.

16. Adler v George – evidence of Literal
rule absurdity.
Literal rule: would mean that Adler is not guilty because ‘in the VICINITY
of a prohibited place’ suggests NOT ON the premises but nearby.
However, the courts felt that this was not the Parliament’s intention, and
therefore the literal rule led to an absurd literal meaning.
Therefore the GOLDEN rule was applied whereby the court held that: The
defendant was guilty of the offence because "in the vicinity of" should be
interpreted to mean ON OR NEAR the prohibited place.
Which approach is used? Wide/Narrow?
Wide.

17. WHY THE GOLDEN RULE??
Any suggestions?
It would be absurd for a court to insist on applying a
literal interpretation to the wording of the Act,
without giving any thought to the consequences.
Refer back to Adler v George – if courts stuck to
literal meaning, any trespasser would get away
with being ON prohibited places, because they
wouldn’t be considered ‘in the vicinity’.

18. When can difficulties arise when
deciding to use the golden rule?
1. Deciding when there is an absurdity OR when there is a simple
logical conclusion that the judge does not like – in other words: is
the judge simply stating there is absurdity because he does not
like the literal meaning?
Duport Steels Ltd v Sirs (1980), Lord Diplock:
Where the meaning of the statutory words is plain and
unambiguous it
for failing to give effect to its plain meaning because
themselves
, or even unjust or immoral. In
, what
is just and what is morally justifiable. Under our Constitution it is
."

19. Case: Duport Steels Ltd v Sirs (1980)
The HOL needed to interpret a section of the Trades Union
and Labour Relations Act 1974 which gave immunity to
union members committing torts in contemplation of a
trade dispute.
At first sight, the wording of this Act may seem absurd as it
suggests union members cannot be liable for committing
torts, if it is industrial based. HOWEVER…
It was established that this is CLEARLY what the Parliament
intended to say, since the phrase had been used in statutes
SINCE 1906 and ITS MEANING WAS WELL SETTLED, which
led to Lord Diplock’s comment.

20. In what situations might a Judge use
the G.RULE for the wrong reasons? (3
mins)
• In political tendencies.
• When they wish to offer empathy with on party.
Judges are not allowed to be biased and steer clear
of political opinions, therefore if the literal
meaning makes sense/ and there is evidence,
then it should remain so.

21. R v Sigsworth [1935] – KEY CASE
Facts:
A son murdered his mother. The mother had not made a will, but in
accord with rules set out in the Administration of Justice Act 1925 her next
of kin would inherit (who was the son).
Do you think he would be allowed to inherit, using golden rule?
Held:
A person who had murdered his mother was not allowed to benefit from
the proceeds of her estate. The court felt to modify the literal meaning, on
the grounds of PUBLIC POLICY, to prevent the murderer benefiting from
the ‘fruits of his crime’.
Which approach was used, Wide/ Narrow?
Wide.

22. Maddox v Storer (1963)
Facts:
D drove a minibus made to carry 11 people at over 30
mph. Under the Road Traffic Act 1960 it was an
offence to drive at more than 30 mph in a vehicle
‘adapted to carry more than seven passengers’.
Golden rule applied and court held:
‘adapted to’ could be taken to mean ‘suitable for‘.
Which approach was used: Wide or Narrow?
Narrow.

23. Activity:
Summarise everything we have covered on the G.RULE
so far. Present your work in a
mind map. (10 mins)
1. What is the G.RULE?
2. Which case highlights the definition of the G.RULE?
3. In what situations may the G.RULE be applied? Give
case examples.
4. When can difficulties arise using G.RULE? – case
examples.

24. Apply the literal rule R v Allen and
discuss your findings – IMP CASE!
Law:
The Offences Against the Person Act [1861] – ‘anyone who being married
shall marry any other person during the life of the former
husband/wife…shall be guilty of bigamy.’
R v Allen (1872)
Allen had been through a marriage ceremony with two women, and was
accused of bigamy.
Is Allen guilty of bigamy?
If this act was interpreted literally, it would be impossible for anyone to
commit bigamy, because you cannot marry whilst already married. Court
held: ‘shall marry’ meant ‘shall go through a ceremony of marriage’.
Applying the golden rule therefore, Allen was guilty of bigamy. To do
otherwise would have produced an absurd result – Narrow or wide app?

25. Dis/Advantages of Golden Rule
In small groups think of the advantages and
disadvantages of the GOLDEN rule. Make
notes on activity sheet
(7 mins)

26. ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
The golden rule can prevent the An absurdity may mean different things
problems of the literal rule, e.g. to different judges.
injustice.
The rule can put into practice what May give judge too much discretion –
Parliament intended. how?
Golden rule provides a check on the Professor Zander’s criticisms of the
strictness of the literal rule. golden rule – ‘an unpredictable safety
valve’ ***
It respects the parliamentary supremacy
as it does not give judges complete
freedom to interpret.

27. HOMEWORK!
Complete the past exam question ready for next Friday!

Research - Professor Zander’s criticisms of the golden
rule – as ‘an unpredictable safety valve’.