STATUTORY INTERPRETATION

Different rules and approaches taken by judges when interpreting an Act of Parliament



Different rules and approaches taken by judges when interpreting an Act of Parliament

Statutory interpretation

While legislators strive for clarity and precision when drafting legislation, the courts will often go to great lengths to determine the true meaning of a statute. Statutory interpretation is an exercise carried out by the courts, with the aid of rules and procedures that are intended to decipher ambiguous and vague legislation. It is in the interest of fairness and justice for a court to properly apply legislation to case facts. Statutory interpretation is therefore an essential process, which cannot be overlooked. It is easy to see why statutory interpretation might be considered a skill of language, rather than law.

When is statutory interpretation used?

Practitioners, academics and students alike, encounter difficulties when interpreting legislation. Complications may be caused by the lexical or syntactical selections of the draftsman. In addition, legislation may appear to be too narrow and insufficient, or too broad and general. Nevertheless, language issues are a common problem that statutory interpretation seeks to combat.

It may be the case that statutory interpretation requires a judge to infer or elaborate on imprecise or incomplete legislation. Although legislators will try and account for every eventuality, the court will inevitably be called upon to give guidance. It is important to bear in mind that judges should act as administers of justice, and not creators of law. This remains to be a contested topic in the context of statutory interpretation.

There are three basic rules (sometimes referred to as canons) that the courts will employ to determine the intention of Parliament, and the meaning of a statute.

The Literal Rule

The first rule of statutory interpretation is the literal rule. A court will initially assess the common and everyday understanding of a provision. Therefore, a provision will be construed plainly, as it would be from a dictionary definition. One of the founding cases for statutory interpretation in view of the literal rule is the Sussex Peerage Case (1884). It was purported by Tindal CJ that where legislation is contested because of ambiguity, it:

…Should be construed according to the intent of the Parliament which passed the Act. If the words of the statute are in themselves precise and unambiguous, then no more can be necessary than to expound those words in their natural and ordinary sense…

The Golden Rule

If statutory interpretation should bring about a repugnant or absurd outcome, the golden rule will seek to apply a reasonable and rational result. It is permissible for a court to modify or vary the language of the statute 'so as to avoid such inconvenience' (Becke v Smith (1836)).

There have been a number of occasions where statutory interpretation may have resulted in a perverse outcome, but for the redeeming affect of the golden rule. One particular case of illustration is Re Sigsworth (1953). Here, the literal interpretation of a statute would have benefited the perpetrator, who murdered his mother and was set to inherit her ...