In my last blog post, we looked at what statutory interpretation is and how judges use it in the UK. This time, we will be considering what the advantages of it are and how it can help to keep the justice system working smoothly, as well as being fair and just. We will then consider the disadvantages of statutory interpretation in a later blog post. We will start this blog post by quickly reviewing what statutory interpretation is, then move on to look at some of the advantages of this.
Statutory interpretation is used when a piece of legislation is ambiguous or does not account for a specific situation. In this scenario, judges then have to look at the statute and try to interpret it in a way that makes sense. There are four different methods they can use to do this; the literal rule, the golden rule, the mischief rule and the purposive approach.
The literal rule states that courts should interpret the words of the legislation exactly, giving them their natural and ordinary meaning, with no assumptions being made, to preserve the will and power of Parliament as the democratically elected body. The golden rule is similar to this but allows the court to ignore the ordinary meaning of the word if this would produce an absurd outcome, preserving the will of Parliament without giving an unjust outcome.
The mischief rule states the courts should look past the exact meaning of the words of the statute to the aim of the statute as a whole, considering what mischief or problem with the law the legislation was intended to fix. This places more emphasis on producing what can be seen as a just outcome. Finally, the purposive approach goes even further, asking what Parliament’s intentions were in making the legislation, again with the focus on the outcome being just.
Advantages of Statutory Interpretation
Literal Rule
So, what are the advantages of statutory interpretation? We will consider this in relation to each of the four types, starting with the literal rule. The primary advantage of the literal rule is that it follows what Parliament stated in the statute. As Parliament is the democratically elected body, they represent the people. Judges are not elected in the same way, so they do not have the same authority as Parliament.
Another advantage of the literal rule is that there is no bias. If the words of the legislation are interpreted exactly as they are written, then it will not matter which judge is considering them, the outcome should be the same. This also helps to make the law more accessible, as anyone should be able to look at it and decide what it means, without there being any uncertainty. It can also encourage careful law-making if the people drafting it know that it will be interpreted literally.
Golden Rule
One advantage of the golden rule is that it helps to avoid absurdities that can be created by the literal rule. This helps to keep the law fair and just, as these absurdities often produce results that seem to go against what Parliament would have intended. However, as there is no fixed test for what counts as an absurdity, this can be a very subjective rule.
A further advantage of the golden rule is that it seems to retain Parliament’s supremacy. It uses the exact wording in the legislation to resolve a case, only departing from this when it would seem to create an outcome Parliament would never have actually intended.
Mischief Rule
An advantage of the mischief rule is that it helps to create outcomes that are fair. It does this by looking at what the legislation was intended to fix, then considering what the result should be based on this intention. If applying the law literally would produce an absurd or unfair outcome, the courts can instead depart from the literal interpretation to ensure a just outcome. This helps to make the justice system fair, as well as improving the public’s trust in the legal system.
In addition, the mischief rule helps to preserve the intentions of Parliament. Following the literal rule can often lead to outcomes that it is unlikely Parliament truly intended. Allowing the courts some discretion over how they apply the law can actually help Parliament’s supremacy, as it follows what they intended the law to be, rather than a direct, often unfair, interpretation.
Purposive Approach
Similarly, the advantages of the purposive approach are that it tries to keep cases just and fair. As it considers what Parliament’s actual intentions are, it can take this into account where following the literal rule would result in an absurd outcome.
Finally, the flexibility given to judges means that they are better placed to deal with issues that Parliament didn’t consider when it was drafting the legislation. This means that the law can adapt as the situation arises, rather than having to wait for a new law to be passed.
Wrapping Up
I hope that this helps you understand how statutory interpretation can benefit the justice system. Of course, there are also disadvantages, which we will be considering in my next blog post, 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 
1 thought on “What are the Advantages of Statutory Interpretation?”