Unit 1 Law making

1. Unit 1 Law making Topic 3 Statutory Interpretation Golden Rule

2. Lesson Objectives All learners will be able to: Understand what the literal rule is. Understand the definition of the golden rule. Most learners will be able to: Demonstrate understanding of cases in relation to rules Some learners will be able to: Apply the golden rule to various sources.

3. Name the problems with interpreting statutes (3 mins) • Language is not a precise tool. • The meaning of words changes over time. • The drafting of the legislation might have been hurried. • Unlike a conversation between two people, there is no recourse to the original speaker when the problem arises. These are the reasons why judges need to interpret statutes using different rules.

4. What is the Ejusdem generis rule? Definition: where list is followed by general phrase. Example? Powell v Kempton Park Racecourse (1899): The words ‘other place’ were held to mean ‘other indoor place’ because the list referred to a ‘house, office, room or other place’ and ‘house’, ‘office’ and ‘room’ are all indoors.

5. Extrinsic & Intrinsic Aids? DEFINITIONS??

6. What is the Literal Rule? Giving the words theirordinary natural meaningwherever such words are capable of a literal meaning. What happened in Fisher v Bell? Was he liable? How did the literal rule apply to the law and case?

7. Case: A shopkeeper displayed in his shop window flick knives with a price ticket behind it. The Law: Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1951 – convict people who offer knives for sale . The Act intended to reduce the number of dangerous weapons available. Defendant was initially charged, however on appeal he was acquitted because: 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.

8. Dis/Advantages of Literal Rule In small groups think of the advantages and disadvantages of the LITERAL rule. Make notes. (5 mins)

10. Why might another rule arise? Sometimes when the literal rule was applied, the result would lead to absurd interpretations- this was not the judges aim! R v Harris (1836) Law: It was a statutory offence ‘unlawfully and maliciously….to stab, cut or wound any person’. Judgement: Harris was held not to have committed this offence by biting off the end of a persons nose, because the words read literally, indicated the use of an instrument. So Harris is not guilty of maliciously wounding when applying the literal rule. However, this seems absurd because the victim was maliciously wounded regardless of the instrument used.

11. Golden Rule The golden rule aims to adapt the meaning of the words in the Parliament Act, in order to not reach an absurd decision. There are 2 approaches: Narrow and Wide. The court will always start off with the literal approach, however, if this fails to make sense, the golden rule will be applied. This rule was explained in the following case:

12. Narrow and Wide Approaches Narrow: the courts will choose between the best of two alternative meanings. Wide: modifies the outcome to avoid an absurd outcome. (R v Allen, make note)

13. The River Wear Commissioners v Anderson (1877) – IMP CASE! Lord Blackburn: ‘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’.

14. Activity Apply the literal rule firstly to this case. Would the Defendant be guilty? Law: You cannot obstruct a member of HM forces engaged in security duty in the vicinity of a prohibited place. Adler v George (1964) 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.

15. Adler v George – evidence of Literal rule absurdity. Literal rule: would mean that Adler is not guilty because ‘in the VICINITY of a prohibited place’ suggests NOT ON the premises but nearby. However, the courts felt that this was not the Parliament’s intention, and therefore the literal rule led to an absurd literal meaning. Therefore the GOLDEN rule was applied whereby the court held that: The defendant was guilty of the offence because "in the vicinity of" should be interpreted to mean ON OR NEAR the prohibited place. Which approach is used? Wide/Narrow? Wide.

16. WHY THE GOLDEN RULE?? Any suggestions? It would be absurd for a court to insist on applying a literal interpretation to the wording of the Act, without giving any thought to the consequences. Refer back to Adler v George – if courts stuck to literal meaning, any trespasser would get away with being ON prohibited places, because they wouldn’t be considered ‘in the vicinity’.

17. When can difficulties arise when deciding to use the golden rule? • Deciding when there is an absurdity OR when there is a simple logical conclusion that the judge does not like – in other words: is the judge simply stating there is absurdity because he does not like the literal meaning? Duport Steels Ltd v Sirs (1980), Lord Diplock: Where the meaning of the statutory words is plain and unambiguous it is not for the judges to invent fancied ambiguities as an excuse for failing to give effect to its plain meaning because they themselves consider that the consequences of doing so would be inexpedient, or even unjust or immoral. In controversial matters such as are involved in industrial relations there is room for differences of opinion as to what is expedient (practical), what is just and what is morally justifiable. Under our Constitution it is Parliament’s opinion on these matters that is paramount."

18. Case: Duport Steels Ltd v Sirs (1980) The HOL needed to interpret a section of the Trades Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 which gave immunity to union members committing torts in contemplation of a trade dispute. At first sight, the wording of this Act may seem absurd as it suggests union members cannot be liable for committing torts, if it is industrial based. HOWEVER… It was established that this is CLEARLY what the Parliament intended to say, since the phrase had been used in statutes SINCE 1906 and ITS MEANING WAS WELL SETTLED, which led to Lord Diplock’s comment.

19. In what situations might a Judge use the G.RULE for the wrong reasons? (3 mins) • In political tendencies. • When they wish to offer empathy with one party. Judges are not allowed to be biased and steer clear of political opinions, therefore if the literal meaning makes sense/ and there is evidence, then it should remain so.

20. R v Sigsworth [1935] – KEY CASE 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). Do you think he would be allowed to inherit, using golden rule? 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’. Which approach was used, Wide/ Narrow? Wide.

21. Maddox v Storer (1963) 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’. Golden rule applied and court held: ‘adapted to’ could be taken to mean ‘suitable for‘. Which approach was used: Wide or Narrow? Narrow.

22. Activity: Summarise everything we have covered on the G.RULE so far. Present your work in a mind map. (10 mins) • What is the G.RULE? • Which case highlights the definition of the G.RULE? • In what situations may the G.RULE be applied? Give case examples. • When can difficulties arise using G.RULE? – case examples.

23. Apply the literal rule R v Allen and discuss your findings – IMP CASE! Law: 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.’ R v Allen (1872) Allen had been through a marriage ceremony with two women, and was accused of bigamy. Is Allen guilty of bigamy? If this act was interpreted literally, it would be impossible for anyone to commit bigamy, because you cannot marry whilst already married. 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 – Narrow or wide app?

24. Dis/Advantages of Golden Rule In small groups think of the advantages and disadvantages of the GOLDEN rule. (7 mins)

26. HOMEWORK! Research - Professor Zander’s criticisms of the golden rule – as ‘an unpredictable safety valve’.