Statutory Interpretation

Acts contain ambiguous words - Fisher v Bell
Words used are too broad - R v Home Secretary
Technological processes means words may need updating - Royal College v DHSS
Drafting errors - R v Burstow

Requires judges to give their words the ordinary, natural and grammatical meaning regardless of whether it produces an absurd result. It is based on the principle that parliament is sovereign and judges should not substitute their own judgement for the words Parliament has chosen.
Whiteley v Chappell - It is an offence to impersonate any person entitled to vote. The df used the vote of a dead man. He was not guilty.

An extension of the literal rule that allows judges to depart from the literal meaning where it would lead to an absurdity.
Narrow approach - a word is capable of more than one meaning, the court may choose between the possible meanings of the word. If there is only one meaning, the court must use it. Adler v George
Wide approach - Words have only one clear meaning which would lead to an absurdity. The court uses the golden rule to avoid absurdity. Re Sigsworth

Originates from Heydon's case and takes a different approach by looking at the gap in the previous law. Judges interpret the Act as to cover the gap or 'mischief' that Parliament intended to remedy. Smith v Hughes

The most popular method and recommended by the Law Commission. It represents an extension from the Mischief Rule, but rather than looking at the gap that existed in the previous law, judges consider what they believe Parliament intended to achieve with the new law.
R v Registrar General - The applicant wanted his birth certificate but it was suspected it was to kill his mother. Despite the plain language of the Adoption Act 1976, the court applied the purposive approach that Parliament would have not intended to promote serious crimes.

Judges have access to various aids that help them understand the meaning of statuory provisions. They are classified as either internal (found within the Act itself) or external (outside th Act).

1. Preamble, introductory texts or long title - Many Acts begin with a statement explaining their purpose of scope. The long title summarises the main objective of the legislation.
2. Explanatory notes - Modern Acts frequently include explanatory in the margin that clarify what each section is intended to do. They are written to be accessible and guide judges towards the intended meaning of the text.
3. Glossary of key terms - Some Acts contain a definition section or glossary that specifies the precise meaning of words or phrases throughout the legislation. This prevents ambiguity and consistency.

1. Dictionaries and textbooks - Judges may refer to legal dictionaries to determine the ordinary meaning of words in R v Jewells.
2.