Statutory interpretation: the literal, golden and mischief rules, the purposive approach, and the rules of language and intrinsic and extrinsic aids to interpretation.

What this dot point is asking

This dot point covers how judges work out what an Act of Parliament means when applying it to a case. You need to describe the three traditional rules of interpretation (literal, golden, mischief), the modern purposive approach, the rules of language, and the intrinsic and extrinsic aids judges may use. WJEC expects accurate cases for each rule and an evaluation of which approach best balances certainty against justice.

The answer

The literal rule

Two cases show its rigidity. In Whiteley v Chappell a defendant who voted in the name of a dead person was acquitted because a dead person is not "a person entitled to vote". In London and North Eastern Railway v Berriman, a railway worker killed while oiling points was not "relaying or repairing" the track, so his widow received no compensation.

The golden rule

The golden rule begins with the literal meaning but allows the court to depart from it to avoid an absurd or repugnant result. It has two applications:

• Narrow application: where a word has two meanings, the court chooses the one that avoids absurdity (Adler v George, where "in the vicinity of" a prohibited place was read to include being inside it).
• Wide application: the court modifies the words to avoid a repugnant outcome (Re Sigsworth, where a son who murdered his mother was prevented from inheriting her estate despite the literal words of the statute).

The mischief rule

In Smith v Hughes prostitutes soliciting from balconies and windows were held to be soliciting "in a street" because the Act's purpose was to clean up the streets. In Royal College of Nursing v DHSS the rule allowed nurses to carry out a procedure the Act seemed to reserve to doctors, because the Act's purpose was safe terminations.

The purposive approach and rules of language

The purposive approach goes beyond the mischief rule: judges give effect to the purpose of the legislation, asking what Parliament intended to achieve. Encouraged by EU law and now dominant, it is more flexible but risks judges overstepping into law-making.

The rules of language assist with lists and phrases:

• Ejusdem generis: general words following specific ones are limited to the same class (a list of "cats, dogs and other animals" covers pets, not lions).
• Expressio unius est exclusio alterius: mentioning one thing impliedly excludes others.
• Noscitur a sociis: a word is known by the company it keeps; read it in context.

Aids to interpretation

Intrinsic (internal) aids are found within the Act: the long and short title, preamble, headings, marginal notes, definition or interpretation sections, and Schedules. Extrinsic (external) aids lie outside the Act: dictionaries, earlier statutes, the Interpretation Act 1978, Law Commission reports, and Hansard, the record of debates. Pepper v Hart relaxed the old prohibition, allowing limited use of Hansard where the legislation is ambiguous and a minister made a clear statement.

Examples in context

The contrast between Berriman and Smith v Hughes captures the whole topic. Under the literal rule in Berriman, a widow lost her claim because "relaying or repairing" did not, on its plain words, include oiling, an outcome harsh but faithful to the statute's text. Under the mischief rule in Smith v Hughes, the court asked what the Street Offences Act was for, cleaning up the streets, and held that soliciting from a balcony fell within "in a street" even though the prostitute was not physically on the street. The modern purposive approach pushes this purpose-driven reasoning furthest, which is why evaluation questions ask whether flexibility comes at the cost of certainty and respect for Parliament.

Try this

Q1. Name the three traditional rules of statutory interpretation. [3 marks]

• Cue. The literal rule, the golden rule and the mischief rule.

Q2. What did Heydon's Case establish? [2 marks]

• Cue. The mischief rule: interpret a statute to suppress the mischief it was passed to remedy.

Q3. Describe the rules of statutory interpretation and assess which best achieves justice. [12 marks]

• What the marker wants. The literal, golden and mischief rules and the purposive approach with cases, then evaluation of the trade-off between certainty (literal) and justice/flexibility (purposive).