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. The Supreme Court may depart from assimilated case law applying its own test for departing from its decisions; the Court of Appeal (and the other relevant courts under the 2020 Relevant Court Regulations) may depart applying the same test the Supreme Court would apply (reg 5), not its own narrower test; 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.

Practise at the real standard

Strong on this topic? SQE1 tests 137 of them, and 58% did not pass in July 2026. See where you stand across all of them.

Complete includes

• ✓An AI tutor on every question. The tutor already knows the correct answer
• ✓5 full timed mock papers, plus unlimited drilling — no daily cap
• ✓The whole 2,263-question bank, with worked answers and references, all 137 topics
• ✓Your weak-spot map: exactly where you’re losing marks

One payment, nothing recurring. The 25-question diagnostic is free with no card.