1. Sources of Law Statutory Interpretation

2. What do you need to know? Why we need statutory interpretation How each rule works You should know at least two cases for each rule The strengths and weaknesses of each rule The difference between the mischief rule and the purposive approach What approach is used most The rules of language Presumptions Intrinsic aids Extrinsic aids (particularly when Hansard can be used) The impact of the Human Rights Act 1998

3. Common mistakes Not using the source Only using the source – not knowing any other cases Not answering the question asked In question B only applying one rule or approach to each situation Not answering part of a question Getting intrinsic and extrinsic aids muddled Not being able to distinguish the rules of language Lack of detail Lack of discussion and comment for AO2

4. How to avoid these mistakes Revise thoroughly Answer the questions asked Apply all three rules or both approaches to each situation in question B Refer to the source throughout your answer – you can refer to line numbers you do not have to write out chunks of source Use a highlighter to highlight the source for each question

5. The Literal Rule The natural meaning of a word Whitely v Chappell (1869) Berriman (1946) Fisher v Bell (1960)

6. Strengths and criticisms Strengths Simple – just give words their normal meaning Courts do not need to guess what parliament meant Normally works fine Criticisms Can lead to unfair and illogical decisions Zander – mechanical and divorced from the realities of language

7. The Golden Rule Two approaches Narrow- If there are two possible meanings choose the the most sensible R v Allen (1872)

8. The broad approach Re Sigsworth

9. Strengths and weaknesses Safety net for the literal rule But hardly ever used Judges don’t like telling parliament they are being absurd Broad approach is really judges making up law

10. The Mischief Rule Heydon’s Case (1584) 1.What was the common law before the act 2. What was the mischief the common law did not deal with 3. What was the remedy parliament came up with 4. The reason for the remedy – suppress the mischief and advance the remedy

11. Cases Smith v Hughes (1960) Royal College of Nursing(1981)

12. Strengths and criticisms Finds the meaning that seems to be what parliament intended Looks at the reason for the law Can be used to extend the meaning of an act to fit new situations Needs the use of extrinsic aids So cases might be more expensive and time consuming

13. The Purposive Approach Magor and St Mellons v The Newport Corporation (1950) Royal College of Nursing How does it differ from the mischief rule DPP v Bull The European approach Purposive approach has to be used for European law

14. Rules of Language Ejusdem Generis Noscitur a sociis Expressio unius est exclusio alterius

15. Presumptions A presumption against a change in the common law A presumption that mens rea is required in criminal cases A presumption that the crown is not bound by any statute A presumption that legislation does not act retrospectively

16. Aids to interpretation Intrinsic aids Short title Long title Preamble Headings Interpretation section

17. Extrinsic Aids Previous Acts of Parliament The Historical setting Earlier case law Dictionaries of the time Hansard Reports of law reform bodies International conventions, treaties, or european law

18. The use of Hansard Davis v Johnson(1979) Hansard was not allowed to be used What were the reasons? Pepper v Hart (1993) Limited use permitted. What are the circumstances it is allowed? What are the advantages and disavantages of using Hansard?

19. The Human Rights Act 1998 S 3 All legislation should be read and given effect in a way that is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.