This to try and get that persons vote

This essay outlines the rules of statutory
interpretation, this introduction will start mainly what the rules are. – The
literal rule, the golden rule and the mischief rule. the vast difficulties that
our courts have in applying these rules, these are not rules as such but are
guidelines. Statutory Interpretation is used to interoperate what Parliament
has enacted. An interpretation of a statute has become quite personal with
judges trying to attempt to have the final say in whatever, means they may use
to identify a decision in a particular case. Some judges may even try and have
the its own rule which may be used more often, where different outcomes may
result from the use of different rules. So, then it is up to the judge to make
a decision how parliament would proceed. this is a procedure by court which interprets legislation
in order to create a better understanding of the statute “this refers to
the process by which court looks at the statute and determines what it means,
this is because sometimes words can be confusing, ambiguous especially because
the word can have more than one meaning. These Principles and rules may not be
legally binding just guidelines that the court have had to develop overtime.
This is very important to acknowledge before trying to consider the rules.


The first rule is The
Literal Rule. It’s where a court could use a definition of a word, in the case
of ‘Whitely v Chappell, where a person was found not guilty of signing an
electoral voting role card to try and get that persons vote because the person
he was trying to impersonate, was actually deceased. So, therefore it was not
eligible, because he has died. This rule is supported by judges who are in
favour in keeping Parliament Sovereign and trying to protect certain
undemocratically elected judges from having too much control over the law,
judges have to stick to the words rather than changing the words of the law, at
that time for themselves. This idea was passed by Lord Esher in ‘R. V. Judge of
the city of London Court (1892)’ when said “If the words of an act are
clear then you must follow them, even though they lead to manifest absurdity.
The court has nothing to do with the question whether the legislation has
committed an absurdity”. The literal rule can also be criticised where a
very harsh decision was made as in ‘London and North-eastern Railway Co Berkman
(1946)’ where a railway worker was killed whilst doing maintenance on the
tracks. His wife tried to claim compensation for his death at the time of his
death, there was by the literal rule of the company that there was to be a
lookout provided by the railway company, as the safety in accordance with the
legislation and the Fatal Accidents Act. This stated that a lookout should be provided for
men working on a railway line for the purpose of relaying it or repairing. It
was said that oiling the points on the railway line was maintaining it, not
relaying or repairing it, so therefore that Mrs. Berningham was denied the
claim and she lost her case.  In this problem
scenario Maureen was arrested for “disturbing the holidaymakers” that
were parked in a street in a caravan by Maureen’s house, these were not local
residents or neighbours so she hasn’t breeched the Act or law. and did not
complain until after three in the morning so literally this is being not pm so
by using the LITERAL RULE. After being arrested for section 1 of the Act so in
this case was found NOT GUILTY. One example is: RV City of London Court Judge Whitley
Chappel 1868.

So, the next rule is the Golden Rule. which is
where there are several ambiguous words such as the party she had was open air
(barbeque.) she has music equipment in her kitchen with the party with a large
crowd. more than one. all these are ambiguous, the court also when she was
arrested said about the time. three am was morning not night so basically was not
pm, also it stated that there was ten people plus Maureen which is also ambiguous.
Again, she would be found not guilty. as the next rule example when she was
arrested the mischief rule was used because this was to mainly stop noise
pollution “all night parties” classical music was played but was
still played late and loud so she is guilty of mischief. Therefore because of
the Noise Pollution Act 2012, she was then found not guilty.

Established in Hayden’s case, whereas with the
purposive rule this rule is very much like the Mischief rule but can be much
more flexible’s the judges can find gaps in the old law which is the purpose of
the Act. this Act is favoured by the CJEU and id used by Domestic Judges and
also look for the wording of the ACT, this also starts with the mischief rule
in seeking the purpose and attention of Maureen was found guilty
of noise pollution. A few examples of these are ‘Pepper vs. Hart’ and ‘Maunsell
vs Olins (1975 Act Case Summary)

The judgement of the Factortame case by the ECJ was
required in order for useful and hopefully successful implementation of
Community law. The full effectiveness of Community law would be just as much
impaired if a rule of national law could prevent a court granting interim
relief in order to ensure the full effectiveness of Community law’.

rule is where the courts could look into a wider meaning. This is called the
Golden Rule. It occurred in the case of (R v Allen) where the gentleman was on
trial for bigamy but was denying that he had done anything wrong, because he
had got married more than once but he could not legally marry twice, therefore
he hasn’t committed the crime of bigamy and has not broken the law. However, to
stop a manifest absurdity, it was ruled by the judge that marriage should be
more widely interpreted to mean more than just “Undergoing a marriage
ceremony”, therefore, making Allen guilty. On other certain occasions,
this may have a wider meaning, when the judge may insert words which may not be
present in the Act. For example, the case of ‘Sigsworth.  This was so obscured that a son who murdered
his mother whom he has just killed, so certain words were inserted into the
relevant statute to stop and prevent any persons inheriting from their murder
victim, these certain situations were all thought of being very creative, this
gives the judges the way and ability to change the law to how they interpret
the law to be. Lord Reids comments in ‘Jones v DPP (1962)’ when he quoted
“This is a cordial principle applicable to all kinds of statutes that you
may not for any reasons attached to a statutory provision a meaning which the
words that provisions cannot reactant be narrowly seen notably bear, if they
are capable of more than one meaning then you can choose between these meanings
but beyond this you cannot go. This view of the golden rule can be seen in the
case ‘Adler B (1964)’ in this case the ‘Official Secrets Act 1920 made it an
offence to obstruct Her Majesties in the vicinity of a prohibited place, where
they had been obstructed, they argued that they were not guilty of the literal
rule overriding the Act, only in the vicinity they were found guilty because if
they were considering an obstruction would be guilty. Anyone this side was not;
the words should have been read as being on or in the vicinity of the
prohibited place they were found guilty.

third rule is the Mischief rule, where the judges look into the purpose of the
Acts. It was used in ‘Smith v Hughes (1960)’ It should be an offense for a
prostitute to loiter and solicited in the street or at a public place for a
purpose of prostitution  the court then
considered all of the appeals against the conviction of six different women in
the case where the women had not been in the street – some has been on the
ground floor, some on the balcony windows, also on the ground floors rooms with
the windows either half open or even closed, but in each case, the women were
calling and attracting the men attention – tapping on the window etc., they
then argued that they were not guilty under this specific section because they
were not “literally in a street or public place”. The court decided
they were guilty, with Lord Parker saying – “For my part I approached the
matter by considering what is the Mischief aimed at by this Act. Everybody
knows this was an Act to clean up the streets, to enable people to walk along
the streets without being molested or solicited by common prostitutes. Viewed
in this way, it can matter whether the prostitute is soliciting standing in the
streets, balconies, doorways or at windows or whether it is shut or half
open”. In the case of the Mischief rule, we would find them guilty because
they are still attracting men whether they are in windows, doorways or on balconies,
so by this rule, the prostitutes are found guilty of the Mischief.

Purposive Approach is also an Act where due to unexpected situations, the judge
can change rules with individual circumstances, unexpected ones to full fill an
Act. An example of this is ‘R V Secretary of State. This was where the Act was
restricted from the cloning of animals and also human embryos. This situation
was not suspected to be in the Act as this technology wasn’t around to give the
judges the freedom to be creative once again. Judges are constrained by their
intentions but not by personal opinions, although the nature of the approach
gives the judge far more discursions than the Golden Rule and the Mischief
Rule, this discursion as it is unlikely that Parliament would be confused this
situation as totally unexpected. A case example of purposive approach is ‘(R V
Quinta Ville) secretary of state for Health (2003)’. The House of Lords used
this approach in deciding that organisms created by cell nuclear replacement
(CNR) came within the definition of embryos in the ‘Human Embryology and
Fertilization 1990 section (1a) Act’ states that “Embryo means a live,
human embryo where fertilization is complete”. CNR was not possible in 1990
when this Act was passed at the time when fertilization was not possible. Lord
Bingham said “The courts task, within permissible bounds of interpretation
is to give effects to Parliaments”. Parliament could not have intended to
distinguish between embryos produced by or without fertilization since it was
unaware of the later possibility. They could not use the mischief rile so the
purpose of approach is trying to make sure that this is given Parliament power
to pass the act.


Government thinks that primary legislation, and regulation by a devoted

remain compulsory in response to public worries about the use of

technologies and human tissue. Present law on supported reproduction and embryo
research needs to be modernised to take account of expansions of new technologies,
changes in civic attitudes and to ensure that rules remain effective and fit
for purpose, and continue to protect public confidence. Replacement of two
existing guiding bodies with a single authority will justify regulation and
produce savings.


As a
result of the ‘European Communities Act 1972’, the United Kingdom became a
member of what was then named the ‘European Communities’ from January 1973. EU
law is at the moment priority over Parliament and judges in the UK. This now at
the moment takes precedent over the ‘Domestic Legislation in England and Wales’
the roles of courts have changed because of this, the ‘European Communities Act
1972’ at this Act all obligations changed. The ‘European Communities Act 1972’
has cemented the supremacy of EU law over domestic legislation. This provides
that UK law be in accordance with EU law, where there is less conflict. This
also requires all judges to comply and to confirm with EU law. This was seen
early as the case “Merchant Shipping” This was also known as ‘Factor
Tame’ then the ECJ made a decision that Britain could not enforce the ‘Merchant
Shipping Act (1988)’ as it is clearly seen that the members of the EU have diluted
parliamentary sovereignty. As Lord Denning said in ‘Bulmer v Bollinger 1974’ –
“Our Sovereignty has been taken away by the European Court of Justice. Our
courts must no longer enforce our national laws. They must enforce Community
Law. No longer is European law an incoming tide flowing up the estuaries of
England, it is now like a tidal wave bringing down our sea walls and flowing inland over our fields and houses to the
dismay of it all”.

Brexit is an abbreviation
“For the British Exit” complying with the decision in referendum to
leave Europe on the 23rd June 2016, the European union (EU) these Acts
define asperations and roiled global makers. this caused the pound to fall to
the lowest level in 30 years, Prime Minister David Cameron who was responsible
for the campaign for us to remain in the EU, had resigned after the following month.
Unfortunately, Theresa May who then replaced him as leader of the Conservative
party and also prime minister, following a very unnecessary election on June 8th