Statutory It is a precept of statutory development

Statutory Interpretation

Statutory interpretation1
takes note of the technique that a court focuses at a statute and sets up what
it implies. A statute, which is a bill or law go by the legislature, powers
obligation and guidelines on the general population. Although they make the
law, statutes might be available to illumination and have ambiguities. The
judiciary may apply rules of statutory interpretation both to an enactment by
the legislature and to representative legislation such as administrative agency
regulations, in common law authorities.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Statutory interpretation became
notable in common law frameworks, with England being the perfect example. In
Roman and Civil law, a statute or code coordinates the magistrate, yet there is
no past legal case. In Britain, Parliament generally were unsuccessful to establish
an entire code of enactment, which is the motivation behind why the courts were
left to build up the custom-based common law; and having chosen a case and the
reason for the choice, it would become binding on later courts.

Judges in England by and large, apply
essential standards of statutory understanding, and comparable guidelines are
additionally utilized as a part of other common law jurisdictions. The literal
rule, the golden rule and the mischief rule. Although judges are not bound to
apply these rules, they for the most part take one of the accompanying
methodologies, and the approach taken by any one specific judge is regularly an
impression of that judge’s own philosophy.

A.    Primary Rules

1.     Literal Rule

2.     Mischief run the show

3.     Golden run the show

B.    Secondary Rules

1.     Reddendo Singula Singulis

2.     Noscitur a sociis

3.     Ejusdem Generis


The judiciary translates how
enactment ought to apply in a specific case as no enactment clear and specific
that tends to all conditions. The court must attempt to decide how a statute
ought to be enforced. This requires statutory development. It is a precept of
statutory development that the legislature is supreme while making law and that
the court is simply a translator of the law. In any case, in practice, by performing
out the development the court can roll out clearing improvements in the
operation of the law.

The Primary rules

The literal rule

The literal rule2 is
the ordinary meaning or the plain meaning rule. It is the undertaking of the
court to give a statute’s words their strict importance regardless whether the
outcome is sensible or not. The literal rule is regularly connected by standard
judges who trust that their constitutional role is constrained to applying laws
as enacted by Parliament. Such judges, are careful about supposedly creating
law, a part which they see as being entirely restricted to the chosen
legislative branch of government. In deciding the aim of the law-making body in
passing a specific statute, this approach limits a judge to the alleged black
letter of the law. The literal rule has been the predominant approach taken for
more than 100 years.

Fisher v Bell (1960) 3


The golden rule

The golden rule4 or
else the British rule is an exception to the literal rule and will be used
where the literal rule produces the result where Parliament’s intention would
be circumvented rather than applied. “The literal rule should be utilized
in first, however if the grammatical and common sense of the words might be
changed, to keep away from absurdity and irregularity, but no further.”

Adler v George (1964) 5


The mischief rule

The last rule of statutory interpretation
is the mischief rule6,
under which a judge attempts to decide the legislator’s aim; what is the “mischief
and defect” that the statute in question has set out to remedy, and what ruling
would effectively implement this remedy? The mischief rule for interpreting
statutes expects judges to consider four components:

1.         What
the law was before the statute was passed

2.         What
issue (or mischief) the statute was attempting to cure

3.         What
remedy Parliament was attempting to give

4.         The
genuine reason of the remedy


Heydon’s case (1584) 3 Co. Rep. 7a, 7b7

As well as these three rules of
interpretation, there are various rules that are held to apply while deciding
the meaning of a statute8

The statute is assumed not to bind the Crown

Statutes don’t work reflectively regarding substantive law

They don’t meddle with legitimate rights already vested

4.         They
don’t remove the jurisdiction of the courts

5.         They
don’t take away from constitutional law or international law

Moreover, there are several:

•           Intrinsic
or else internal and

•           Extrinsic
or else external guides to statutory understanding.


Inherent (Internal)
Aids to Statutory Interpretation9

These are things found inside the
statute which enable judges to comprehend the importance of the statute more

•           The
long and the short title

•           The

•           Definition

•           Schedules

•           Headings


(External) Aids to Statutory Interpretation10

These are things found outside of the
actual statute which might be considered by judges to enable them to comprehend
the importance of a statute more clearly.

•           Dictionaries

•           Historical

•           Previous

•           Earlier
case law

•           Hansard

•           Law
Commission Reports

•           International



The Impact On U.K
Due To E.U Membership11

After the participation with the
European Union, United Kingdom had a drastic change in their framework in ruling
the country. A standout amongst the most featured impacts after the E.U
participation was the statutory interpretation. We know that the U.K does not
have a written constitution and the Parliament is above all. Parliament is
where the law is made in any shape yet when U.K entered E.U, the conditions of membership
were stated that all E.U law are consequently U. K’s law without going through the

Over that, the E.U law is binding to
all the member states. In any case, we may inquire as to whether before U.K
enters E.U, U.K had law now that conflicts with E.U law? This is when the issue
had emerged, since, the day of membership U.K courts must ensure that they
would withdraw Orthodox standards since they would prefer not to conflict with
the E.U law. We would see that judges would utilize the statutory interpretation
and their creative mind to somewhat adjusted the importance of the statutes
since they would prefer not to conflict with the E.U law.

Hence, for this case, the statutory interpretation
had been misused where in genuine reason for existing was to help the judges to
decipher the statute in view of their fundamental reason that the Parliament
needed to apply however because of E.C, the judges would have no real option
except to alter it. In this way, the genuine purpose behind the statute would
not remain. In this sense, if there is any conflict, the court would not choose
to have new constitution, be that as it may, they would change the version of
the statute to accomplish the sovereignty of Parliament. This argument can be argued
using the case of Factortame v Secretary of State for Transport (No.2).12 This
case is that the candidates who were controlled by the Spanish of nationals.

This issue emerged after U.K enter
the E.U where it ensured the freedom of products, services, people and capital
and this case had tested the legitimacy of the Merchant Shipping Act 198813
on premise that in repudiated the E.C Treaty and had denied their rights that
were expressed in the Community law. The applicants immediate applied for an interim
injunction to limit the Secretary of State to uphold the Act.

Nonetheless, the House of Lords
overruled the suspension held that the Merchant Shipping Act 1988 was in compel
that it must be translated as per the E.C arrangements. For this case, we
officially noticed that U.K. Parliament lose their sway in a roundabout way as
well as in the meantime the statutory interpretation in interpreting the Merchant
Shipping Act was not the reason that the Parliament had proposed. This
demonstrates the impact of the E.U law had cause U.K cases to be chosen in absurdity with regard using the
statutory interpretation.


Accordingly, we could likewise
observe that the constraint of the sway Parliament was acknowledged when it
ordered the European Communities Act
197214 was whole voluntarily. In the
meantime, it turns into the obligation for the U.K to supersede any administer
of national law observed to straightforwardly conflict with the Community law.

The other impact was in the Human Rights Act 199815.
Human Rights Act 1998 was passed to secure the privileges of the general
population, shockingly, till a specific degree, it protected the privileges of the
general population yet again it isn’t so simple in practise.

Firstly, in section 316,
the court must utilize the statutory understanding to decipher enactment that
‘so far as is possible’ compatible with the Convention rights which was defined
under the Act. This section had
make rules of interpretation must take as the second-place requirement of
compatibility. Other than that, the more meaning after the interpretation, the judges must have to
choose the meanings that most conform the convention. Thus, this will
demonstrate that how far that a judge can expand the importance where it won’t
have the capacity to have open space for interpretation.

Furthermore, in section 217,
the court must ‘consider’ that the law of the European Court of Human Rights
together with opinion and decisions of the European Commission of the Human
Rights and decisions of Committee of Minister as to about Convention rights,
when deciding any question concerning Convention rights.

Finally, in section 418,
the judges could translate the statute that had contradict with the Convention
rights of the High Court, Courts of Martial Appeal, Court of Appeal, House of
Lords or Privy Council can make
declaration of incompatibility but no one can make it as invalid Act.

Once again, we can see that, even though, the Human
Rights Act 1998 main purpose was to protect people’s rights but due to the
membership with E.U, the purpose of the Human Rights Act 1998 does not matter
anymore, as the first thing first is that it must not negotiate with any E.U
law and this also to be resolved through statutory interpretation then we can
also argue that what’s the use of the statutory interpretation? Why not just
pass any Act that would not contravene with the E.U then judges would not need
to waste time on to interpret the statutes imaginatively. However, this matter
would not be able to resolve when it involves in the political party.






interpretation’s essential primary objective was to help judges to interpret on
the purpose of the Act but till today this objective still stand but at the
same time there is something holding it back, it is the U. K’s membership with
E.U. Due to this, E.U had been somehow rule U.K and U.K is somehow like losing
its power in ruling its own nation. Anything that happened such as any act
contravene with E.U, U.K had to make sure using statutory interpretation in
hope to modify the Act until the purpose of the Act had been blurred. This had
made so many decisions in cases to be absurd or better be known as injustice yet
again what can we do to resolve such things from happening. The answer to that
would never be seen or heard if U.K remain in E.U. hence, no matter how hard
U.K tried to solve this issue, it would not succeed because we can see that how
U.K afraid to conflict with E.U law. Therefore, to finish up, U.K
would dependably lie in grey when concerning the guidelines identifying with
statutory interpretation because of its membership with E.U.

Wikipedia, ‘Statutory Interpretation’ (Wikipedia, 28 December 2017),
, accessed 29 December 2017

2 TransLegal,
‘The rules of statutory interpretation(2)’ (TransLegal,2017)
, accessed 2 January 2018

3 Fisher v
Bell 1960 3 WLR 919, 1961 1QB 394


5 Adler v
George 1964 2 WLR 542, 1964 2 QB 7


7 Heydons
Case 1586 1 Leonard 72, 1586 ER 67


LawTeacher, ‘Rules of Statutory Interpretation’ (LawTeacher, 2018) ,
, accessed 3 January 2018



12 R
(Factortame Ltd) v Secretary of State for Transport No.2 2002 EWCA Civ 932, 2003
Q.B. 381

13 Merchant
Shipping Act 1988

European Communities Act 1972

15 Human
Rights Act 1998

16 Human
Rights Act 1998, s3

17 Human
Rights Act 1998, s2

18 Human
Rights Act 1998, s4