Statutory Interpretation

D o c u m e n t s t h a t c a n b e u s e d t o h e l p t o i n t e r p r et A c t s o f
parliament?

Judges can use a range of documents to help them interpret the

words in an act as well the broader meaning of the act itself. They
are split into two types:

1. Documents considered as being part of the Act known as

internal aids

2. Documents considered as being outside the Act known as

external aids

Internal aid examples External aid examples

Long & short titles in an Act Authorised dictionary of the year
the Act was passed normally the
Oxford English Dictionary (OED)
Pre amble External treaties entered into by
the UK, e.g. the treaty of Rome
Definition section of the Act Law reform reports on which the
Act is based e.g. Law Commission
reports
Legal presumptions Human Rights Act
The Interpretation Act 1978 Hansard reports on parliamentary
debates
Interpretation section
Schedule

How do internal and external aids link to the four approaches of

statutory interpretation?

Internal aids can be used by any of the four approaches to statutory

interpretation as well one external aid, the OED from the year the
act was passed. The OED is allowed as it is presumed parliament
would have had access to such a dictionary and words used in the Act
would have been in use in society at the time with a particular
meaning.

External aids (except the OED) can only be used by the Mischief rule
and the Purposive approach. This is because these two approaches are
not as concerned with exact meaning of words in the Act but in
ascertaining the broader meaning of the Act and why Parliament
created the part of it which is ambiguous.

1
 Statutory Interpretation

Internal aids

Are mainly anything inside the Act. Any part of the Act that has been
debated and voted on by parliament is regarded as the actual law.
However, some parts of the Act are added by Houses of Parliament
lawyers after the Act has become law to help aid interpretation of
the Act, e.g. notes in the margin of an Act, called marginal notes.
Anything not voted on by parliament is considered only guidance as to
the meaning of the Act and is not strictly the law.

Long and Short title

The short title is just be the name of the Act. The Long title exists
for some acts and gives an explanation of what the Act is trying to
achieve. The Long and the short title of the Act are part of the law in
the Act.

For example, the Short Title of the Abortion Act also has a long title,
which said it was An Act to amend and clarify the law relating to
termination of pregnancy by registered medical practitioners.
In the case of RCN v DHSS the Long title was referred to decide
whether or not changes in the way abortions were carried out by
nurses were in breach of the Act.

Pre amble

Older Acts have a preamble, which outlines what the Act covers and
its purpose. It is an introduction or explanation of what is to follow.
This is also treated as part of the Act. Example the Offences
Against the Person Act 1861 has a preamble that says the purpose of
the Act is to consolidate all the old law on offences that be
committed against a person into one Act of parliament. These included
treason and GBH with intent.

2
 Statutory Interpretation

Which part of the Offences Against the person Act is the Pre amble?
What was the date Queen Victoria gave royal assent?

3
 Statutory Interpretation

Definitions Section

Provide definitions of key words or phrases in other parts of the Act.

These may be different from the meaning of the word in its common
everyday use. For example in the Theft Act 1968 Section 1 of the Act
has a definition section which defines theft as:

1)A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with
the intention of permanently depriving the other of it; and thief and steal shall be
construed accordingly.

However the Act contains no definition section defining the word

dishonestly as jury members and Magistrates are presumed to
understand the meaning of this word in the context of stealing.

Interpretation section

Provides an explanation of what the words or phrases are in another

part of the Act. They tend to give more detail to things defined in
the definition section such as theft. So in the Theft Act 1968 the
interpretation section containing the details regarding how the law
applies the phrase dishonestly states:

A persons appropriation of property belonging to another may be dishonest notwithstanding

that he is willing to pay for the property.

Interpretation Act 1978

The Act is specifically designed to give some basic rules of

interpretation for all Acts of Parliament created. For example,
strictly speaking an Act should state exactly what genders it applies
to where relevant, i.e. male or female or both. However, in Acts the
common approach is only to put the Act in the male gender and
Interpretation Act means judges will interpret this to also mean
female, e.g. he means she.

This also applies to act that are only written in the singular, e.g.
boat. The Act means this is interpreted to include boats, plural.

4
 Statutory Interpretation

Section 6 of the Act says:

6 Gender and number.

In any Act, unless the contrary intention appears,

(a)words importing the masculine gender include the feminine;

(b)words importing the feminine gender include the masculine;

(c)words in the singular include the plural and words in the plural include the singular.

Legal Presumptions

Over a long period of time judges have create a legal set of does and
dont s that they apply to every Act unless the Act specifically says
otherwise:

These include:

1. A presumption against retrospective effect of legislation All

Acts are taken to start from the date the Queen gave it Royal
Assent or the commencement date. It is presumed the law in an
Act applies to any past situations.

2. A presumption that Acts require the proof of the Ds mental

awareness of committing any crime in the Act, e.g. intended to
kill. Acts presume parliament require the P to prove the Mens
Rea of any criminal offence.

Case Example: Sweet v Parsley: A school teacher let her house

out to students. The students were smoking cannabis in the
house. She was unaware of this activity. She was charged with
an offence of being concerned with the management of premises
which were being used for the purposes of smoking cannabis
contrary the Dangerous Drugs Act 1965. The Act did not state
any requirement of mens rea of the offence.

Held: As the offence could mean a prison sentence the HL

stated that the legal presumption was that the Act required the
proof of Mens rea, that D was aware of the cannabis smoking. As
evidence did not show this she was acquitted.

External aids

5
 Statutory Interpretation

Are all documents a judge can use to interpret and Act and its words
that are not classed as part of the Act itself. The aim is to provide
better definitions of words or phrases or to actually look at any
debates or discussions before the Act became law, made by
parliament or organisations recommending the changed law, to decide
what the law was trying to achieve.

Authorised dictionary of the year the Act was passed

It is presumed by judges that parliament would want the words in

Acts interpreted with the meaning from when the Act was actually
debated and voted. So using a dictionary from the year the Act was
passed will help in understanding the meaning of such words. However,
this means the meaning of a word at the time of the Act may be very
different from the meaning today.

Example: Cheeseman v DPP (1990) where the defendant "willfully and

indecently exposed his person in a street to the annoyance of
passengers." The passengers happened to be police officers, who
decided to station themselves in the public convenience where the
complaints had been made from, catching him exposing himself in
public. He was charged under an Act created in 1847.

Held: The 1847 dictionary from the time of the Act was used to
decide that the word passengers did not include the police officers
who were not actually travelling by foot anywhere but were stationed
in the toilet. Therefore the judge interpreted the Act to find that
Cheeseman did not commit a crime in front of the police officers.

External Treaties entered into by the UK

Any treaties made by the UK with other countries can be looked at by

judges to interpret the Act of parliament, where the treaty may have
changed the meaning of the Act, e.g. The Treaty of Rome signed by
the UK when it joined the EU.

Example: Factortame case: The case was brought to court to decide

how to interpret whether Spanish fishermen were able to register
their boats as British in order to catch fish in UK waters, and get
round a law made by the EU that stopped them doing this.

6
 Statutory Interpretation

Held: The Court looked at the Treaty of Rome, which said that the UK
government agreed to abide by EU laws, and then interpreted the
Merchant Shipping Act to say that the national law should be
interpreted to stop Spanish fishermen from contravening EU law.

Law Reform Reports

These are reports which have been requested by Parliament or the

government to look at particular problems with an area of law, e.g.
Theft, murder. In 1975, the House of Lords in the case of Black
Clawson declared that such reports can be used as external aids to
interpret an Act.

Example: DPP v Bull: A man was charged with an offence under s.1(1)
of the Street Offences Act 1959 which makes it an offence for a
'common prostitute to loiter or solicit in a public street or public
place for the purposes of prostitution'. The magistrates found him
not guilty on the grounds that 'common prostitute' only related to
females and not males. The prosecution appealed by way of case
stated.

Held: The court held that the Act did only apply to females. The word
prostitute was ambiguous and they applied the mischief rule. The
Street Offences Act was introduced as a result of the work of the
Wolfenden Report , a law reform report, into homosexuality and
prostitution. The Report only referred to female prostitution and did
not mention male prostitutes. The QBD therefore it was aimed at was
controlling the behaviour of only female prostitutes.

Hansard

Hansard is the official record of parliamentary debates.

In 1993, the House of Lords declared that Hansard could be used as

an external aid for the mischief / purposive approach.

7
 Statutory Interpretation

However, House of Lords only allowed use of Hansard in limited way:

1. To clarify ambiguous words/phrases in an Act:

2. Only where words of the Act are ambiguous or obscure or lead

to an absurdity

3. And only if there was a clear statement by the Minister

introducing the legislation

If the judge is interpreting EU law or the Human rights Act then they
can use Hansard without these restrictions.

The HL in the case of Pepper v Hart (1993) was the first case when
using Hansard was allowed as an external aid.

Pepper v Hart: The House of Lords had to decide whether a teacher

at a private school had to pay tax on the perk he received in the form
of reduced school fees. The teacher sought to rely upon a statement
in Hansard made at the time the Finance Act was passed in which the
minister gave his exact circumstance as being where tax would not be
payable. The House of Lords used Hansard to decide that the teacher
was not required to pay tax on the perk he received.

Human Rights Act

All judges must now interpret every Act so that it grants a person
their Human rights. The Human Rights Act allows judges to interpret
Acts so that this can take place even if it means taking a very wide
interpretation of other pieces of legislation.

The Act makes the European Convention on Human Rights implicit in

every other Act made by Parliament. An overriding requirement is now
contained in the Human Rights Act 1998 in that, so far as it is
possible to do so, legislation must be read to give effect in a way
which is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

Case example: R v A: The D argued that it contravened his right to a

fair trial if he couldnt raise previous sexual history between himself
and the alleged rape victim as evidence in court.

Held: The HL held that the Youth Justice Act did not contravene to a
right to fair trial as evidence could be raised but only in exceptional
circumstances, such as having consensual sex 48 hrs before the
alleged rape,