1) The document discusses different rules of statutory interpretation including the literal rule, golden rule, mischief rule, and purposive approach. 2) It provides examples of cases that helped develop each rule and how the courts applied the specific rule of interpretation in reaching their decisions. 3) The purpose of the document is to teach learners about the different rules of statutory interpretation and how courts utilize these rules to determine the meaning and application of statutes.

1. Statutory Interpretation
09.03.2012
shummi.s@hotmail.co.uk

2. HOMEWORK!
Hand in your practice answer; Mischief/Purposive rule
question. Failure to hand in an answer, will result in
an incomplete task on progress report.
Colin will be reviewing all student progress reports.

3. Lesson Objectives:
All learners will be able to:
Define the 4 different rules to statutory interpretation.
List at least 2 cases per rule.
2 AO2 mark per rule (1 ad, 1 dis)
Most learners will be able to:
Describe at least 3 cases per rule.
Some learners will be able to (challenge):
Critically analyse 2 rules: 4 A02 marks per rule (2ad, 2
dis)

4. Starter Activity
Complete the crossword – 3 minutes.
Card game – 7 minutes.

5. LAW
Teams of 3 each.
Assign a Team Name and Sound
Let the game begin!

6. Define the Literal, Golden and Mischief
rules…

7. LITERAL RULE

8. Powell v Kempton Racecourse
Which rule came about from this case?
Euisdem Generis Rule
Give an example of the rule.

9. R v Bloxham
Facts?
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
Held?
X is another person who benefited from buying a cheap car, therefore Bloxham is
guilty.

10. Fisher v Bell
Facts?
A shopkeeper displayed in his shop window flick
knives with a price ticket behind it.
Held?
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.

11. R v Harris
Facts?
Harris bit of the end of a woman’s nose.
It is a statutory offence to ‘unlawfully and maliciously…stab, cut or
wound any person’.
Held?
Harris was held not to have committed this offence, because the
words read literally, indicated the use of an instrument to ‘stab, cut
or wound’.

12. Whiteley v Chappel
Facts?
Defendant pretended to be someone who had died in order to use
that person’s vote.
It was a statutory offence to ‘personate any person entitled to vote’.
Held?
As dead people cannot vote, the defendant was held not to have
committed an offence.

13. London and North Eastern Railway v Berriman
Facts?
C, the widow, of a railway worker tried to obtain compensation after
her husband was killed by a train while maintaining the line.
The Fatal Accidents Act states any dependant of a worker in the act of
‘repairing or relaying the lines’ will receive family compensation in
the event of an accident.
Held?
He had been routine maintenance and oiling not ‘relaying or repairing‘
tracks. So she was not entitled to compensation.

14. Procter & Gamble v HMRC
Facts?
D, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMCR) imposed VAT on “Pringles”
made by C. Put Pringles in the category of "potato crisps, potato sticks,
potato puffs and similar products made from the potato, or from potato
flour, or from potato starch"
Held:
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. 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.

15. GOLDEN RULE

16. River Wear Commissioners v Anderson
What did Lord Blackburn say?
‘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’.

17. Adler v George
Facts?
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. You cannot obstruct a member of HM forces
engaged in security duty in the vicinity of a prohibited place.
Held?
The defendant was guilty of the offence because "in the vicinity of" should be
interpreted to mean ON OR NEAR the prohibited place.

18. R v Sigsworth
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).
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’.

19. Maddox v Storer
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’.
Held?
‘adapted to’ could be taken to mean ‘suitable for‘.
Narrow approach used.

20. R v Allen
Facts?
Allen had been through a marriage ceremony with two women, and was
accused of bigamy. 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.’
Held?
. 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.

21. MISCHIEF RULE

22. Heydon’s Case
What were the rules?
1.What was the law before the statute?
2.What was wrong with that law?
3.How did Parliament intend to correct this?
4.Apply this statute in that context.

23. Smith v Hughes
Facts?
Some prostitutes were accused of soliciting, contrary to the Act. The
defendant along with other prostitutes , sat on a balcony, or inside a
building tapping on the window, to attract the attention of men in the
street. Street Offences Act 1958: it is an offence to solicit in a street for
the purpose of prostitution’.
Held?
it did not matter that the women were not on the street themselves, as they
were still soliciting men in the street, which was what the Act was
designed to prevent. They were therefore found guilty. The mischief was
them tapping on the balcony seeking attention from the street.

24. Corkery v Carpenter
Facts?
The defendant was riding his bicycle whilst under the influence of
alcohol. S.12 of the Licensing Act 1872 made it an offence to be
drunk in charge of a 'carriage' on the highway.
Held?
The court applied the mischief rule holding that a riding a bicycle is a
carriage. This was within the mischief of the Act as the defendant
represented a danger to himself and other road users.

25. Elliot v Grey
Facts?
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 that he would have
renewed it before driving the car again. It was jacked up and had its
battery removed. The defendant argued he was not 'using' the car on the
road as clearly it was not driveable. s.35(1) Road Traffic Act 1930: it is
illegal to use an uninsured vehicle on the road.
Held?
It was held that the car was being ‘used on a road’ and needed insurance, it
was a hazard of the type which the statute aimed to prevent. The High
Court affirmed his conviction.

26. PURPOSIVE APPROACH

27. Royal College of Nursing v DHSS [1981]
Law?
Section 1(1) of the Abortion Act 1967 states that ‘a person shall not be guilty of
an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy is terminated
by a registered medical practitioner…’
Facts?
By the 1970’S it was common for abortion to be induced by using a
drug – a job which could be performed by nurses.
Held?
It was clear that Parliament’s intention was to make abortion clear in certain
controlled circumstances and to prevent ‘back-street’ abortions performed by
unqualified people. However, because they were induced under the supervision
of a doctor, the House of Lords decided that such abortions were legal.

28. Tesco v Brent LBC 1993
Facts?
A 14 year old was sold a video with a "18" classification, and the
supermarket chain were prosecuted for an offence under the Video Recordings Act
1984.
Law?
that it would be an offence to sell such a video where the seller had reason to believe
the buyer was under age; on the facts, this applied to the checkout operator but not
to the company itself.
Held?
Staughton LJ said Parliament clearly intended the company to be liable on the
strength of its employee's knowledge, otherwise no national company could ever
have been prosecuted.

29. R v Goodwin (2005)
Facts?
A person was charged with negligently causing injury to
another on a ‘wet-bike’ (water-sport vehicle), after speeding
in the sea near to Weymouth. The charge was brought under
the Merchant Shipping Act 1995. Goodwin appealed.
Held?
The Court of Appeal held that this ‘wet-bike’ was not a ‘sea-
going’ vessel and therefore not a ‘ship’ within the context of
this Act.

30. R v Registrar General ex parte Smith
Law?
Concerned s.51 of the Adoption Act 1976 which enables a person to obtain
details of his birth certificate when reaching 18 years of age.
Facts?
Son had murdered twice and was in a mental hospital. He wanted his birth
certificate. Psychiatrist confirmed there would be danger to natural
mother.
Held?
The Court - despite the plain language of the Act - applied a purposive
approach saying: "Parliament could not have intended to promote serious
crime".