Statutory interpretation

LS.03 — Statutory Interpretation

Courts interpret statutes to give effect to Parliament's intention as expressed in the words used. There is no rigid hierarchy of rules; in practice the purposive approach now dominates, but you must know the traditional rules.

The three traditional rules

• Literal rule — give words their ordinary, plain meaning, even if the result is harsh or absurd (Whiteley v Chappell: impersonating a "person entitled to vote" did not cover a dead man).
• Golden rule — start literal, but depart to avoid an absurd or repugnant result (R v Allen: "marry" read as "go through a ceremony" to give the bigamy offence effect).
• Mischief rule (Heydon's Case) — identify the gap/"mischief" the Act was passed to remedy and read it to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy.

Purposive approach

The modern default: read words in light of the statute's purpose (Pepper v Hart permits reference to Hansard only where the wording is ambiguous/obscure/leads to absurdity, the statement is by a minister/promoter, and is clear). Strongest for EU-derived/assimilated legislation.

Rules of language and presumptions

• Ejusdem generis — general words following a list take the colour of that genus.
• Expressio unius est exclusio alterius — express mention of one excludes others not mentioned.
• Noscitur a sociis — a word is known by its neighbours.
• Presumptions: against changing the common law, against retrospective effect, against ousting court jurisdiction, against criminal liability without mens rea, that statutes don't bind the Crown.

Aids

• Internal/intrinsic: long/short title, preamble, headings, schedules, definition sections, punctuation.
• External/extrinsic: Interpretation Act 1978, dictionaries, Hansard (within Pepper v Hart limits), Law Commission/explanatory notes, prior case law.

HRA 1998 and EU/assimilated law

• HRA 1998 s.3 — read legislation compatibly with Convention rights "so far as possible"; if impossible, the higher courts make a s.4 declaration of incompatibility (does NOT strike the statute down).
• REUL Act 2023 renamed retained EU law to "assimilated law" and ended EU supremacy from 1 Jan 2024. Note: REUL Act 2023 s.6 (new departure test) never came into force (commencement revoked, SI 2024/976); the EUWA 2018 s.6 framework still governs — only the Court of Appeal/Supreme Court may depart from assimilated case law (own-precedent basis); lower courts/tribunals remain bound.

Common traps

• Don't treat the rules as a fixed sequence to apply in order — courts pick the approach; purposive is dominant.
• Golden rule needs absurdity/repugnance, not mere harshness (that's the literal rule's domain).
• Pepper v Hart is gated, not free access to Hansard.
• s.4 declaration ≠ invalidation; the statute stays in force.
• "Assimilated law," not "retained EU law," post-2024 — and EU supremacy has ended.