The document discusses statutory interpretation and the literal rule approach. It provides examples of cases where the literal rule was applied: 1. R v Bloxham - Bloxham was found liable for theft for selling a stolen car under a literal interpretation of the law, even though he may not have intended to handle stolen goods. 2. Fisher v Bell - A shopkeeper displaying knives for sale was found not liable under a literal interpretation because "display" does not technically constitute "offering for sale" according to contract law. 3. Procter & Gamble v HMRC - Pringles were ruled to not be potato crisps and thus not subject to VAT since, under a literal interpretation of what they are

1. Statutory Interpretation
27th January 2012
shummi.s@hotmail.co.uk

2. Lesson Objectives
All learners will be able:
To understand what is statutory interpretation and
why we need it.
Most learners will be able:
To understand the Literal Rule.
Some learners will be able:
To be able to apply the literal rule to different
sources.

3. Stat Interpretation - What is it?
Civil cases come before the courts because there is a disagreement between the
parties either: WHAT HAS HAPPENED (FACT) or WHAT RULES APPLY TO SITUATION
(POINT OF LAW).
Courts have 2 roles – to decide issues of fact AND…?
…to decide points of law!
However at times there may be confusion as to what certain laws are meant when
they were passed, and this is when judges need to interpret the statute
accordingly.
Criminal cases – issues of fact are sometimes decided by a ……….. Or in
Magistrate’s court by a ………………………. But points of law are always decided by
Judge.
In civil cases a judge decides both issues.

4. Problems of interpreting statutes…
What do you think makes the written law so
unclear that the parties to a dispute can each
have a valid but different view of the law?
(POSTER 10 mins)

5. Problems of interpreting statutes…
1. Language is not a precise tool.
“It shall be a criminal offence for any vehicle to enter the park”
What is a vehicle? Could we expect a vehicle for a disabled person
from entering parks, or a child’s bicycle, or – Twining v Myers
(1982) did roller skates amount to a vehicle?
These are all open to debate depending on our interpretation of
the word ‘vehicle’ therefore words often take their meaning from
their context, so there are shades of meaning.

6. 2. The meaning of words changes over time.
When the Telegraph Act 1869 was passed the
telephone had not been invented, so in subsequent
cases it was necessary to extend certain provisions of
the Act to cover telephone messages.
3. The drafting of the legislation might have been
hurried.
When the courts need new laws, they need to pass a
new law quickly through parliament. Nobody challenges
the wording because everyone is happy with the
purpose of the legislation. E.g. The Dangerous Dogs Act
1991 wording is unclear.

7. 4. Unlike a conversation between two people,
there is no recourse to the original speaker
when the problem arises.
There is no opportunity to say, ‘Excuse me, but
I didn’t quite follow. What exactly did you
mean by that?’ If confusion arises in a letter to
a friend, it is not hard to write back. However
in a game where there are rules, unless it is
possible to contact the manufacturer, the
players would be forced to make up their own
extensions to the rules.

8. • Legislation may be applied in situations not
envisaged by the legislators.
• The way in which we interpret the meaning of
any communication depends on who we are
and what our past experiences have been.
Any more?

9. Why do we need statutory interpretation?
When problems arise interpreting statutes, courts do
not have an immediate opportunity to contact
Parliament because:
a) It is a matter of practical policy not to put direct
questions to Parliament.
b) It is unlikely that the same members of Parliament
would be available to be questioned.
Therefore problems can arise when a judge has to
decide whether a particular piece of legislation applies
to the situation before court.

10. How does a judge interpret statute?
1. Presumptions – what is this?
A judge begins by assuming certain things.
These will be taken true unless a good argument
is given to demonstrate the presumption should
not apply.
Judges should construe the words of the statute
in context and not in isolation – using internal
and external aids to construction;

11. How does a judge interpret statute?
2. Rules of language
Euisdem generis rule: where list is followed by
general phrase, interpret general phrase in
light of preceding words.
• “Cat, dog, hamster and other animals” = other
‘domestic’ animals;
• “House, shop, factory and other places” =
other buildings.

12. Case for Euisdem generis rule
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.

13. Methods of Interpretation – Literal
Rule
The intention of Parliament is best achieved
by giving the words their ordinary natural
meaning wherever such words are capable of
a literal meaning.
Activity –Provide the literal meaning to the case,
and decide whether Bloxham would be liable
for theft.

14. Is Bloxham liable using literal rule?
(5 mins)
Apply the literal rule to this case:
The Law:
• S22 (1) Theft Act 1968: “A person handles stolen goods if … he
dishonestly undertakes or assists in their … disposal by or for the
benefit of another person.”
Case:
• R v Bloxham:
Bloxham paid £500 for a car, and promised a further £800 once the
log book was delivered. The log book was not delivered and
Bloxham realised the car must have been stolen. Eventually he sold
the car for £200.
Is Bloxham liable for theft?

15. A literal approach to R v Bloxham
• S22 Theft Act 1968 (1) “A person handles
stolen goods if he dishonestly undertakes or
assists in their disposal by or for the benefit of
another person”.
Answer:
X is another person who benefited from
buying a cheap car, therefore Bloxham is
guilty.

16. Fisher v Bell (1960) –IMP CASE
Apply the literal rule to see if the shopkeeper is
liable.
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.
Case:
A shopkeeper displayed in his shop window flick
knives with a price ticket behind it.

17. A literal approach to Fisher v Bell
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.
Background of contract law – 3 stages:
1. Invitation to treat – display on shelves/windows.
2. Make offer – when go to the checkout.
3. Acceptance & Consideration – payment for product.
Court assumed that parliament knows the legal technical meaning
of the word ‘offer’ so the Act was rendered ineffective here.

18. Activity
Identify in your groups how the literal rule is
interpreted.
Make notes for each case, with reasoning, ready
to discuss.
(10 mins)

19. Answers:
R v Harris (1835) – Harris was held not to have
committed this offence, because the words
read literally, indicated the use of an
intrument to ‘stab, cut or wound’.
Whiteley v Chappel (1868) – As dead people
cannot vote, the defendant was held not to
have committed an offence.

20. Answers:
London and North Eastern Railway v
Berriman (1946):
He had been routine maintenance and oiling
not ‘relaying or repairing‘ tracks. So she was
not entitled to compensation.

21. Answers:
Procter & Gamble v HMRC [2008]:
Held: Mr Justice Warren:
• Pringles are not potato crisps because they are not made wholly or
exclusively from potato, the potato content is less than 50%, they
are also made from dough. Also distinguishing them from crisps is
their packaging, and "unnatural shape”. What Pringles are 'made
from' was a question of law; which is found by combining two
issues of fact; were they made of mostly of potato, in a way other
crisps are made.
• Regular Pringles are not potato crisps applying these tests.
• Following the judgment, Pringles, in all flavours are free from Value
Added Tax (VAT). Because they are manufactured from dough,
“Pringles” are more like a cake or a biscuit.