In this blog post, we will be considering what statutory interpretation is, as well as the different types that can be used in the UK. These four types are the literal rule, the golden rule, the mischief rule and the purposive approach. However, the mischief rule and the purposive approach are fairly similar, the purposive approach is just a more recent version.
How these rules are used varies from judge to judge. Some think that they should follow Parliament’s legislation to the letter, as they are the elected law-making body, so it would be undemocratic for judges to change it. Others think that it is more important to follow Parliament’s intentions than the words of the Act to ensure the outcome of a case is fair and just. There will be further blog posts looking at the pros and cons of statutory interpretation.
What is Statutory Interpretation?
Statutory interpretation is the method used by the courts where the legislation is unclear. This can be for various reasons – ambiguity, a particular point not being mentioned, errors made in the Act, or new legal developments. This last point is particularly difficult, as some pieces of legislation date back to the 1800s. Words have changed in meaning and some have dropped out of use. In addition, technology has advanced, meaning new situations are possible that the drafters then could not possibly have accounted for.
All of this means that it is not always clear what the law is in a particular situation. Here, judges have to decide how to apply the law in a way that makes sense. To do this, they will use one of the four rules of statutory interpretation (literal, golden, mischief and the purposive approach) to interpret the legislation and then use this to decide the outcome of the case.
Literal Rule
The literal rule states that all words in the Act of Parliament should be given their ordinary and natural meaning, so the legislation is interpreted in a very literal way. The reasoning for this is that Parliament is the lawmaker, so courts should not presume to know what it intended. This is based around the fact that Parliament is elected by the people, so to ignore the literal meaning of the Act would be undemocratic.
Use of the literal rule can sometimes result in outcomes that seem to be unfair or not what would have been intended by Parliament. One example of this is the Berriman case (1946), where a worker was killed while oiling the railway line, as a result of there being no lookout. The law stated that compensation could only be given when a worker was relaying or repairing the line. The court decided that oiling was neither of these, so the company did not owe any compensation to the worker’s widow. It does not seem as though Parliament intended to exclude a task such as oiling, but this was how it had to be interpreted following the literal rule.
Golden Rule
To deal with the problems arising from the use of the literal rule, courts created the golden rule. This acts as a sort of middle ground between allowing Parliamentary supremacy and making sure outcomes are fair. The golden rule states that the words of the legislation must be followed, except when doing so would create inconsistency or absurdity.
There are two ways the golden rule can be applied – narrowly or widely. The narrow approach states that courts can only choose between the meanings of the words. This approach was used in the case Adler v George (1964), where the defendant was accused of obstruction “in the vicinity” of a prohibited area. There was no question that he had created the obstruction, but he argued that he was not “in the vicinity” of the prohibited area; he was inside it. The courts decided to interpret “in the vicinity” to include actually being inside the area to avoid the absurd result.
The wide approach allows courts to modify the meaning of the words, even when it is clear, if this would give an absurd result. For example, in the case Re Sigsworth (1935), the defendant had murdered his mother. The law stated that her estate would pass to her closest relative, which would have been the defendant. However, it was obviously absurd for him to profit from his crime in this way, so the court added the stipulation that the person inheriting cannot have caused the death.
Mischief Rule
The mischief rule was established in Heydon’s case (1584), where the court set out the four things needed to interpret statutes. Firstly, the court must look at the law prior to the Act, identify the mischief the new legislation was trying to resolve, then the remedy that Parliament was trying to create and, finally, give effect to this remedy. In essence, it looks for what Parliament intended to resolve and follows this intention rather than the exact wording of the legislation.
Purposive Approach
The purposive approach is similar to the mischief rule, in that it looks for the purpose of the new legislation. However, it goes further than the mischief approach and gives judges more flexibility. It is sometimes said to be a combination of the other three rules.
Wrapping Up
I hope that this helps with your legal studies. In my next blog post, we will be looking at what the advantages of statutory interpretation are, so come back in two weeks for that!
Want help proofreading your work? Contact Carmine Proofreading for a friendly, professional service from a qualified proofreader.
Email: CarmineProofreading@gmail.com
Twitter: https://twitter.com/CarmineProofed
Carmine Proofreading 
2 thoughts on “What are the Different Types of Statutory Interpretation in the UK?”