Statutory Interpretation Case Study

Statutory interpretation is the process at which the court interprets and analyzes law. There are rules following this judicial process at which the law is analyzed. The traditional rules involve the literal rule, the golden rule, and the mischief rule.

The Literal Rule

The literal rule is the first rule the judges must apply when deciding a case. It governs and give interpretation to the law. It is the main rule that must be used with the only exception of the language not properly understood or leading to no intelligible result then other rules can be used. For example in Mrs Hiralal Ratanlal v STO, AIR 1973 the court noted that:

In interpreting a statue, the first and foremost rule in interpreting is the literal rule. All the court has

For example in Whitely v Chappel (1868) it is an offence to impersonate any person entitled to vote but the defendant impersonated a dead person but he was not found guilty because a dead person doesn’t count.

Lord Diplock said in 1980 that when the meaning of the statutory words is plain and clear, it is not the duty of the judges to add meaning to the word as an excuse for not giving a clear meaning because the consequences of doing such would be unjust. (Duport steel v Sirs, 1980)

And also stated by Justice Frankfurter; judges are confined to their judicial function and it’s exercise in the aspect of interpretation. They are under the constrains imposed by the judicial function in a democratic society. Therefore, no one would contradict the fact that the function of the judiciary is to ascertain the intentions of the legislature. And to go beyond that is to “usurp” a power lodged in its elected legislature. Caution has to be taken in observing limitations. A judge must not rewrite a statue, add or contract it. Whatever the policy maker may create, construction must not eschew interpolation nor evisceration except to avoid “patent nonsense or internal

Provides no clear means to test the existence of the characteristics of absurdity, inconsistency or inconvenience, or to measure their quality or extent...” (bitoflaw , 2003)

Mischief Rule

This rule is more like a principle it allows the court interpret the statute according to what the law was before the Act was passed.

Four principles were given in Heydon’s case (1584) for the court to follow and they are;

• What was the common law before the making of the Act?

• What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide?

• What remedy Parliament hath resolved and appointed to cure the disease of the Commonwealth.

• The true reason of the remedy

Following this rule, the judge is given the right to ratify any “mischief” in a statute. To give a remedy to the Act the way the legislative body intended. But caution has to be taken as to interpreting the statute according to the law therefore, the court uses the common law when using the mischief rule in interpreting a statute.

For example in Smith v Hughes (1960) the defendants were charged under the Street offences Act (1959) with soliciting (prostituting) in public (an offence under s.1 (1)). They were hissing at men from a window not really in public. But, the mischief rule was applied and the defendants were