Statutory interpretation ensures laws align with legislative intent while adapting to modern realities. Courts use the literal, golden, mischief, and purposive rules to balance strict textual reading with practical application, ensuring justice and legal certainty.
Introduction
Statutory interpretation is an imperative judicial process that involves deciphering and applying legislation, ensuring it aligns with the legislative intent. Legislations often have inherent complexities of language, which leads to an ambiguous nature of the statutes. This makes the interpretation of laws crucial for the judiciary. The aim is not only to uphold the parliament's sovereignty but also to ensure justice is balanced through textual reading and sensible application of the legislation.
This balance requires the judges to navigate between strictly literal interpretation and sensible discretionary consideration that compliments the contemporary reality. This article explores different principles of statutory interpretation and insights into how judges reconcile literal interpretation with judicial reasoning to achieve the necessary outcomes in complex legal scenarios.
Literal Rule
Literal Rule, also known as the grammatical rule, means that the legislation needs to be interpreted strictly, and the scope of the words should not go beyond their ordinary meaning.[1] The words are to be understood in a literal manner, staying within the ambit of its natural meaning unless the status suggests otherwise. The rationale behind the Literal rule is to respect the legislature as it is and ensure that the intent of the lawmakers is upheld.
In Duport Steel v. Sirs[2], Lord Diplock stated “Where the meaning of the statutory words is plain and unambiguous it is not then for the judges to invent fancied ambiguities as an excuse for failing to give effect to its plain meaning because they consider the consequences for doing so would be inexpedient, or even unjust or immoral.”[3]
Advantage of Literal rule
- There is no scope for the judges to form their own opinion which can interfere with the case.
- Separation of power is upheld.
- There is certainty and precision.
In the case R v. Harris[4], the defendant bit off the nose of the victim. The statute criminalized ‘stabbing, cutting or wounding’. The court held that biting does not fall under cutting, stabbing and wounding, and teeth do not constitute as a weapon. The judges ruled by the literal meaning and Harris was considered not guilty under the statute despite the fact he caused harm.[5]
The disadvantage of the rule is that there can be no disagreements over the literal meaning, which can create chaos and loopholes. Respecting the separation of powers is crucial, however, following precise language can lead to absurdities.
Golden Rule
Lord Wensleydale defines the rule as “The grammatical and ordinary sense of the words is to be adhered to unless that would lead to some absurdity or some repugnance or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument in which case the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words may be modified so as to avoid the absurdity and inconsistency, but no farther.”[6]
The golden rule is a modification of the literal rule. It allows the judges to deviate from the literal meaning of the words to avoid preposterous outcomes. This rule provides flexibility to the judges so they can make a decision that is balanced with the law and situation. There are two approaches to this rule. If a word has multiple meanings, the court may choose an interpretation that makes the most sense. If a word has a single meaning, the court can alter it to suit the case.
In the case of R v. Allen[7], the defendant was charged with bigamy under the Offences Against Persons Act 186. The statute states, ‘Whosoever, being married, shall marry any other person during the life of the former husband or wife, whether the second marriage shall have taken place in England or Ireland or elsewhere, shall be guilty of felony, and being convicted thereof shall be liable…’[8] Under the literal rule, bigamy would be impossible, as civil courts do recognise second marriages (unless the first is legally dissolved), and the literal interpretation would be unenforceable. The courts adopted a broader approach where “marry” meant the ceremony itself, this ensured the law was followed through by retaining its purpose.
Mischief Rule
The mischief rule originates from Haydon’s Case (1584)[9] and gives judges the most discretion of all. Haydon’s case laid out four principles to be followed when applying this rule:
- What was the common law before the act was implemented?
- What was the mischief and defect for which the common law did not provide?
- What remedy has the parliament sought for that mischief?
- The judge has to make such a decision that suppresses the mischief and advances the remedy.
The rule prioritizes the legislative intent over the literal words. It allows the courts to enforce laws effectively, particularly when there is a loophole that threatens the intent of the law. In the case of Smith v. Hughes[10], the defendants were charged under the Street Offences Act (1959) for soliciting in a public place. The prostitutes who were charged were soliciting from the windows, which is technically not a public place. The mischief rule was applied to interpret the law as soliciting in public was intended as an offence. The court concluded by following the mischief rule.
Purposive Approach
The purposive approach interprets statutes regarding the overall intent by seeking the broader purpose of the law. There is a distinct difference between the purposive approach and the mischief rule. The former is broader and more proactive, while the latter is narrow and fixates on a specific issue. The purposive approach is particularly useful in cases where the literal interpretation renders the law ineffective. This approach requires a court to look at the purpose of the statute and the intent behind it. This specific type of interpretation is extremely important to Canadian constitutional law and the Supreme Court of Canada has held that the proper approach to give meaning to the Charter rights is through the purposive approach.[11]
In R v. Secretary of State for Health, ex parte Quintavalle[12], the court had to interpret the term “embryo”. Under the Fertilization and Embryology Act 1990 (UK), the drafters of the statute did not foresee scientific advancements in creating embryos through cloning. The court used the purposive approach and ruled that the definition of “embryo” should include scientific developments, ensuring the law remains valid and effective.[13] This approach allows the judiciaries to adapt to modern advancements and contemporary realities.
Conclusion
Statutory Interpretation bridges the gap between dynamic purposivism and rigid interpretation of legislation. The above-mentioned rules are the four primary types of interpretations, where literal and golden rules protect the parliamentary intent, and the other two adapt the laws to the constantly evolving realities. Ultimately, the interpretive tools empower the court to uphold the word of the law as well as the intent of the law as one does not exist without the other. In conclusion, a careful balance of judicial creativity and legislative intent ensures justice remains principled and fair.
[1] Ayali Natua and Debarjun Dey, ‘Literal Rule of Interpretation and Its Relevance in Today’s Context’ (White Black Legal) https://www.whiteblacklegal.co.in/details/literal-rule-of-interpretation-and-its-relevance-in-today-s-context-by—ayali-natua-imam-jamal-siddiqui-debarjun-dey accessed 20th February 2025
[2] [1980] 1 WLR 142.
[3] Pinar Okur, The Rules of Statutory Interpretation (PhD thesis, Leiden University, June 2021) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/352152336_42_The_rules_of_statutory_interpretation#:~:text=Lord%20Diplock%20once%20noted%3A%20%22Where,or%20even%20unjust%20or%20immoral.%22 accessed 20th February 2025
[4] (1836) 7 C & P 446.
[5] Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA), F4 Corporate and Business Law (Singapore) Exam Paper (June 2014) https://www.accaglobal.com/content/dam/acca/global/PDF-students/acca/f4/exampapers/sgp/F4SGP-2014-jun-a.pdf accessed 20th February 2025.
[6] Open University, 'The Golden Rule' https://www.open.edu/openlearn/mod/oucontent/view.php?id=68342§ion=3.2 accessed 20th February 2025.
[7] R v Allen (1872) LR 1 CCR 367 https://www.e-lawresources.co.uk/r-v-allen-1872 accessed 20th February 2025.
[8] Offences Against the Person Act 1861, s 57 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/section/57 accessed 20th February 2025.
[9] Critical Analysis of the Literal, Golden, and Mischief Rules (LawTeacher, 31 August 2021) https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/administrative-law/critical-analysis-of-the-literal-golden-and-mischief-rule-law-essay.php accessed 20 February 2025.
[10] Smith v Hughes (1870) LR 6 QB 597 https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/smith-v-hughes.php accessed 20 February 2025
[11] R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd [1985] 1 SCR 295 https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/43/index.do accessed 20 February 2025
[12] Regina v Secretary of State for Health (Respondent) ex parte Quintavalle (on behalf of Pro-Life Alliance) (Appellant) [2003] UKHL 13 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldjudgmt/jd030313/quinta-1.htm accessed 20 February 2025
[13] Spencer Millis, ‘Purposive Approach to Charter Interpretation’ (Constitutional Studies, 27 July 2020) https://www.constitutionalstudies.ca/2020/07/purposive-approach-to-charter-interpretation/ accessed 20 February 2025
