STATUTORY INTERPRETATION AS 2013-2014

We have already noted that the court can challenge delegated legislation but not legislation itself on the basis of the sovereignty of Parliament doctrine. This is not to say however that the courts do not have an important function with regard to legislation.

The judge has the task of:

Interpreting the meaning of words, which are unclear?OR

‘Fill in the gaps’ when an act does not make it clear whether a certain situation is covered

The meaning of the law in statutes should be clear & explicit but this is not always achieved. Many cases come before the courts because there is a dispute over a meaning of an act of Parliament. In such cases the court's task is to decide the exact meaning of a particular word or phrase. There are many reasons why the meaning may be unclear:

a) A broad term

b) Ambiguity

c) A drafting error

d) New Developments

e) Changes in the use of language - The meaning of words can change over years.

In order to apply legislation judges must ascertain the meaning of the legislation, & in order to ascertain the meaning they are faced with the difficulty of interpreting the legislation.Legislation passes on to the judiciary (JUDGES) what Parliament has said the law should be in relation to a particular situation.

One essential requirement of legislation is that it can be generally applied; the need for it to be written in such a way so as to ensure that it can be effectively applied in various circumstances without the need to detail those situations individually.

1

I.e. building

The need for making the statute general however can only really be achieved by making the statute less clear.

A broad term could be used leaving it to the user to decide what it includes:

e.g., where the Theft Act 1968 refers to the word ‘building’ in the offence of burglary (see first handout)

Legislation therefore involved a certain degree of uncertainty that can only be made certain through judicial interpretation.

HOW MAY JUDGES ABUSE THEIR ROLE AS NECESSARY INTERPRETERS OF LEGISLATION?

LITERAL APPROACH V PURPOSIVEThe conflict between these two approaches is one of the major issues of statutory interpretation.Should judges examine each word and take it literally or should it be accepted that an Act of Parliament cannot cover every situation and the meaning of words cannot always be exact. In European law the purposive approach is always taken

LITERAL APPROACH PURPOSIVE APPROACHDefinition The purposive approach

emphasises the purpose or aim of the law and applies it to the facts accordingly.

It follows the spirit not

2

the letter of the law.

(Refer to Adam question p6 first handout)

The underlying purpose is to interpret legislation as Parliament intended it but how do judges do this when they were not in Parliament when the legislation was passed?????

Definition of ROBBERY/BURGLARY – first handout pg. 3

THERE ARE 5 PRINCIPLES THAT JUDGES USE TO HELP THEM INTERPRET STATUTESA) Three rules (approaches) of interpretation that judges have developed

B) Intrinsic aids (aids from within the act)

C) Extrinsic aids ( )

D) Presumptions – starting points which can only be rebutted by statute using words showing a contrary meaning

E) Rules of language

A) THE RULES OF INTERPRETATION ADOPTED BY JUDGES

i) THE LITERAL RULE (APPROACH)

Under this rule the judge is required to consider what the legislation actually says rather than to consider what it means.

R V JUDGE OF THE CITY OF LONDON 1892 Lord Esher said, “If the words of the act are unclear, you must follow them even if they lead to a manifest absurdity”

IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THIS END THE JUDGE SHOULD GIVE THE WORDS IN LEGISLATION THEIR LITERAL MEANING:

LONDON NORTH EASTERN RAILWAY CO V BERRIMAN 1946

3

FACTS: The Fatal Accidents Act was designed specifically to give railway worker’s dependant family compensation in the event of an accident while ‘Repairing of Relaying lines’. Mr. Berriman was killed whilst ‘maintaining’ the lines. Mrs. Berriman applied for compensation & the judge in the court applied the act LITERALLY.

Was Mrs. Berriman awarded compensation?

Give reason for your answer.

DECISION:

WHITLEY V CHAPELL 1868FACTS: D was charged under a section which made it an offence to impersonate ‘any person entitled to vote’. D had pretended to be a person who was on the voters’ list but who had died. Anyone who is dead is not entitled to vote. The judge applied the act literally to D.

Was D convicted?

Give reason for your answer.

DECISION:

R V HARRIS 1836FACTS: Harris bit of the end of the V’s nose. The statute stated that it was an offence “To stab, cut or wound any person”

Did Harris commit such an offence?

HELD:

4

ADVANTAGES OF LITERAL RULE

i)

ii)

iii)

iv)

DISADVANTAGES OF THE LITERAL RULE

i)

ii)

iii)

5

IV)

ii) THE GOLDEN RULE

This rule is generally thought of as an extension of the literal rule. It is generally applied in circumstances where the application of the literal rule is likely to result in what appears to the court to be an obviously absurd result.

The golden rule starts by looking at the literal rule but then the court is allowed to avoid the interpretation which could lead to an absurd result. There are 2 views on how the Golden rule should be used. The first is very narrow:

Narrow application Where the words are capable of more that one meaning then you can choose between the 2 meanings but beyond that you cannot go

The narrow view can be seen in practice in:

R V ALLENFACTS: s57 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 stated that

“Whosoever being married shall marry any other person during the life of the former husband & wife shall be guilty of bigamy”

It was pointed out that it was impossible for a person already ‘married’ to ‘marry’ someone else they might go through a marriage ceremony but would not actually be married.Using the literal rule would make the statute useless.The courts therefore took ‘shall marry’ to mean ‘shall go through a ceremony of marriage

ADLER V GEORGEFACTS: D was charged under the Official Secrets Act with obstructing a member of the armed forces ‘In the vicinity of a prohibited place’. D argued that he was actually ‘In the prohibited place’ not ‘In the vicinity of’. Had the court applied the LITERAL interpretation then he would have been found _______________.

DECISION: the court interpreted the phrase ‘In the vicinity of’ to include “In a prohibited place” to avoid the absurd result

Wider application

6

The second & wider application of the Golden rule is that where the words have only one clear meaning but that meaning would lead to an unsatisfactory situation.

In such a case the court will invoke the golden rule to modify the words of the statute to avoid this problem:

RE SIGSWORTHFACTS: Son had murdered his mother.

The mother had not made a will so according to the rules of the Administration of Estates Act her estate would go to her next of kin this would mean her son would inherit as her ‘issue’.

There was no ambiguity in the words of the act, but the court was not prepared to let a murderer benefit from his crime.

HELD: So it was held that the literal rule would not apply & the golden rule would be used to stop the son inheriting.

Effectively the court was writing into the act that the ‘issue’ would not be entitled to inherit where they had killed the deceased

The golden rule provides an opportunity for judicial law making. The narrow approach allows a judge to choose between 2 or more meanings of a word.

The wider interpretation shows that the golden rule is often seen as the mischief rule in disguise finding & upholding Parliament’s intention in creating the Act. However in using the golden rule they are still seen to be applying the law – upholding the doctrine of separation of powers.

ADVANTAGES OF THE GOLDEN RULE

1) It respects the exact working of Parliament except in limited situations when there is a problem with the literal rule. The Golden rule provides an escape route - SIGSWORTH

2) It allows judges to choose the most sensible meaning of words when there is more than one meaning to an act. It can provide sensible decisions when the literal

7

rule would lead to a repugnant situation – R v ALLEN it avoids the worst problems of the literal rule

3) It helps put into practice what Parliament really wanted as P would never have wanted the literal outcome in ALLEN

DISADVANTAGES OF THE GOLDEN RULE

1) It is limited in its use it is only used on rare occasions when the wording is absurd or repugnant. Michael Zander described it as ‘a feeble parachute’. In other words it is an escape route from the literal rule but cannot do very much

2) It is not always possible to predict when the courts will use it.

3) The Law Commission noted that there was no clear meaning of ‘absurd result’ so it is unclear when it will be used

iii) MISCHIEF RULE

Judges fill in the ‘gaps‘ in the law

This is the most flexible rule of interpretation. The rule stresses the need to interpret legislation in a way that gives effect to the objectives of the act.

It was originally set out in HEYDON’S case in 1584.

In Heydon’s case it was stated that in making use of the mischief rule the court should consider the following things:

I) What was the common law before the act was passed?

II) The judges look at this common law to discover what ‘gap’ or ‘mischief’ the Act was introduced to cover.

8

III) The court should then interpret the Act in such a way that the gap is covered

This was an attempt to discover the intention of Parliament and apply it to the cases before the courts.The judge should interpret the statute in such a way as to put a stop to the problem that parliament was addressing.

SMITH V HUGHES 1960FACTS: In this case a prostitute was soliciting from a balcony of a private house to men to men in the street below. She was charged with ‘Soliciting in a street or public place’Using the literal rule she was:

Using the mischief rule she was:

DECISION:

In SMITH v HUGHES Parliament had obviously not anticipated her activities therefore there is a ‘gap’ or ‘loophole’ in the law that judges can fill using the mischief rule

9

ROYAL COLLEGE OF NURSING V DHSS 1981

FACTS: In this case it was the working of the abortion act which was in question it stated that a ‘pregnancy could be terminated be a registered medical practitioner’. When the act was passed in 1967 the procedure to carry out an abortion was such that only a doctor (registered medical practitioner) could do it. From 1972 techniques improved & meant that the second part of the procedure could be done by a nurse without a doctor present. The court had to decide if the procedure was lawful under the Abortion Act.

HELD: The 3 judges based there decision on the MISCHIEF RULE pointing out that the mischief that Parliament was trying to remedy was the unsatisfactory state of the law before 1967 & the number of illegal abortions. They also said that the grounds for the act was to ensure abortions were carried out by proper skilled people in hospitals.

The 2 judges in the minority took the literal view & said that the words of the act were clear & that terminations could only be carried out by doctors. They said that the other 3 judges were not interpreting the act but re-drafting in with vengeance

EASTBOURNE BOROUGH COUNCIL V STIRLING 2000

FACTS: a taxi driver was charged with ‘Plying for hire in any street without a license to do so’. His vehicle was parked on a taxi rank on a station forecourt, not on a street

HELD: He was found guilty as, although the taxi was on private land, he was likely to get customers from the street. The court referred to SMITH v HUGHES saying that it was the same point

R v Z 2005

FACTS:

DECISION:

10

ADVANTAGES OF THE MISCHIEF RULE

i) Avoids absurdity & injustice – DHSS / R V Z

ii) Promotes flexibility to find the purpose of the act and gives the legal experts more freedom of choice in their decision - DHSS

iii) Lord Denning said it allows judges to “fill in the gaps” when P has left something out and to use common sense and to use wording to reflect what P was trying to deal with therefore promoting the purpose of the law. – SMITH V HUGHES

iv) Allows the act to be interpreted to take into account the social, economic & technological changes in society - DHSS

DISADVANTAGES OF THE MISCHIEF RULE

11

i) It contradicts Separation of Powers as it allows judicial law making which is undemocratic. Judges are trying to fill in the gaps in the law with their own views on how the law should remedy the gap– DHSS case shows that judges do not always agree on the use of the mischief rule.

ii) Makes the law uncertain it is impossible to know when a judge may use the rule & also what result it might lead to. It is therefore difficult for a solicitor to advise clients on the law. – STIRLING / SMITH v HUGHES

iii) The mischief rule is not as wide as the purposive approach as it is limited to looking back at the gap in the old law. It cannot be used for a more general consideration of the purpose of the law.

iv ) Finding the mischief the act was trying to prevent is not easy even if Hansard is used. The judges may not reflect Parliament’s true intention as they were not there when the act was passed - DHSS

PURPOSIVE APPROACH

This goes beyond the mischief rule in that the court is not just looking to see what the gap was in the old law; the judges are deciding what they believe Parliament meant to achieve.

The champion of this approach was Lord Denning.

It means that the court, in interpreting the statute, will take into account what they believe Parliament meant to achieve however imperfectly this might have been expressed in the words used. – ‘The purpose of the act’

ROYAL COLLEGE OF NURSING V DHSS 1981

JONES V TOWER BOOT CO 1997

FACTS; The Race Relations Act S32 said that it was an offence “to physically or verbally abuse within the course of employment” A young black worker was being racially abused by his workmates during their unpaid lunch hour. When he complained his employer said that the abuse did not fall within the ‘course of his employment’ as it was in his unpaid lunch hour & so he could do nothing about it.

12

The Employment Tribunal agreed with the employer & said that the employer could not be held responsible to the black worker for his workmates’ behavior.

The CA disagreed using the PURPOSIVE approach to interpret s32.

They said that PARLIAMENT’S INTENTION WAS TO ELIMINATE DISCRIMINATION WITHIN THE WORKLPLACE & this would not be achieved by using a literal construction to the wording.

R V ZHELD: Guilty as the purpose of the act was to stop terrorism & terrorists which they clearly were. (See attached sheet)

FITZPATRICK V STIRLING HOUSING ASSOACIATION 1999(See attached sheet)

ADVANTAGES OF THE PURPOSIVE APPROACH (also see mischief rule)

i) It is much wider than any of the other 3 rules so that judges can use more discretion & find the true purpose behind the act – JONES/DHSS

ii) Avoids absurdity & injustice – DHSS / R V Z

iii) Allows the act to be interpreted to take into account the social, economic & technological changes in society - DHSS

iv) Promotes flexibility to find the purpose of the act and giving legal experts like judges more freedom of choice in their decision – DHSS/ JONES

v) Many of the courts in the countries in the EU use this approach, which

brings us more into line with them

DISADVANTAGES OF THE PURPOSIVE APPROACH (also see mischief rule)

1) It contradicts Separation of Powers as it allows judicial law making which is undemocratic. Judges are trying to fill in the gaps in the law with their own views on how the law should remedy the gap– DHSS case shows that judges do not always agree on the use of the mischief rule.

ii) Makes the law uncertain it is impossible to know when a judge may use the rule & also what result it might lead to. It is therefore difficult for a solicitor to advise clients on the law. – STIRLING / JONES

13

iii) Not always easy for judges to find Parliaments intention (even if HANSARD is used) they may get it wrong – DHSS Parliament may not have wanted nurses to do abortions/ JONES

iv) Could lead to confusion judges could change the meaning of what the acts says – DHSS

v) It means the law is working retrospectively – R V Z/DHAIDS TO INTERPRETATION

In addition to the 3 main rules of interpretation there are a number of secondary aids to construction. These can be categorized as INTRINSIC or EXTRINSIC in nature.

B) INTRINSIC ASSISTANCE

Judges using the literal and golden rule are more likely to favor these but they can be taken into account whichever approach is used.These come from within the statute which is the object of interpretation; the judges using the full statute to understand the meaning of a particular part of it.

i) TITLE: LONG OR SHORT TITLE:

SHORT – This will just name the Act - ‘THE ABORTION ACT’

LONG – This will give some explanation as to what the act is trying to achieve –

‘AN ACT TO AMEND & CLARIFY THE LAW RELATING TO TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY BY REGISTERED MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS’

ii) PREAMBLE – Older statutes usually have a pre-amble which sets out Parliament’s purpose in enacting the statute. Modern statutes either do not have one or it is very brief. E.g. The THEFT ACT 1968 states that it is an Act “To modernize the law of Theft”

iii) SCHEDULES – These usually come at the end of a section & often include more detailed information

iv) MARGINAL NOTES - These are not part of the act & are inserted into the act by a draftsman when it goes for printing – not strictly part of the act & traditionally not regarded as legitimate to use

14

v) INTERPRETATION SECTION – This section in the Act sets out what meanings are intended for certain words used in the Act (See Adam p 6

C) EXTRINSIC ASSISTANCE

The mischief rule directs the judge to use these aids. i.e., references to sources outside the act itself.

i) DICTIONARIES -Usually user to find the literal meaning of a word – Oxford English Dictionary used at the time the statute was passed

iii) OTHER STATUTES - useful where acts are drafted in similar terms. The SDA 1975 & the RRA 1976 are written in almost identical terms

v) HANSARD - This is the official daily report of parliamentary debates, & therefore a record of what was said during the introduction of legislation.

For over a 100 years the judiciary said this could not be consulted for the purpose of statutory interpretation. Denning tried to do away with this rule.

In 1979 in DAVIS V JOHNSON Denning referred to Hansard but was reprimanded by the HL for doing so.

In 1993 in the case of PEPPER V HART:

The HL overturned this rule & decided that HANSARD could be referred to in the following circumstances:

1) Where the precise meaning of the legislation was uncertain or ambiguous or where the literal meaning would lead to an absurdity

2) The material being debated consists of a statement by a minister or a promoter of the bill. So looking at HANSARD would make it clear what he intended from the Bill

3) The statements relied on are clear.

ARGUMENTS AGAINST USING HANSARD

i)

15

ii)

ARGUMENTS FOR USING HANSARDi)

ii)

vii) LAW COMMISSION REPORTS, ROYAL COMMISSION REPORTS

The Law Commission & Royal Commission are bodies that examine the law & make recommendations for change to Parliament.

As with Hansard, the courts used to hold that reports by law reform agencies should not be considered by the courts.

However this rule was relaxed in the Black Clawson 1975 case when it was accepted that such a report should be looked at to discover the mischief or gap in the law which the legislation based on the report was designed to deal with.

iv) 1978 INTERPRETATION ACT – This provides definitions of certain words which are often used in acts. For example it states that masculine shall include feminine & singular shou7ld include plural unless it states differently in the act

ADVANTAGES /DISADVANTAGE OF INTRINSIC AIDS

1) The Long & the short title are of limited use but the Long title may remind the court of what Parliament is trying to achieve especially when using the mischief or purposive approach (see on p12)

2) Marginal notes, headings are sometimes useful to refer to

3) Most acts contain a definition section but these are not always helpfulE.g. Theft Act 1968

EXTRINSIC AIDS1) Dictionaries are useful when using the literal rule but not with other approaches a dictionary was particularly useful in the case of CHEESEMAN to find the meaning of the word ‘passenger’

16

2) Law Commission & other reports are useful when applying the mischief/purposive approach as they usually explain the fault of the old law & why the new act was passed – the ‘mischief’ it was trying to prevent.

3) Hansard is useful to see what was said in Parliament when the Bill was being passed but others say it doesn’t help & only increases the cost

4) Explanatory notes that accompany most modern acts are useful as they are written in plain English & may help clarify the meaning of technical & specialist terms used within the Act

D) PRESUMPTIONS

In addition to the above the court can also make use of certain presumptions. As with all presumptions they are rebuttable. The presumptions operate:

1) Acts do not act retrospectively - Unless Parliament passes legislation against this presumption, then the Act will be presumed to be prospective (i.e. the law only applies form the day it comes into effect).

2) The monarch cannot be prosecuted – Unless the Act contains a clear statement to the contrary, it is presumed not to apply to the Crown

3) As from October 2000 Judges have also tried to interpret all legislation in such a way as to be compatible (to comply with) the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)

4) That mens rea is required in criminal offences

17

The basic common law rule is that nobody can be convicted of a crime unless it is shown that they had the intention to commit it. For example:

SWEET V PARSLEY (1970), FACT: A defendant was charged with “being concerned with the management of premises which were used for smoking cannabis.” D owned a house which she let out to students who were smoking cannabis. D knew nothing about this fact

HELD: Since the defendant was the owner of the property, she was clearly ‘concerned in the management of the premises’, but as she did not know that cannabis was being smoked there, she had no MENS REA, so she was found not guilty, since there was a presumption that mens rea was required which she did not have.

E) RULES OF LANGUAGE

Developed by judges over time, these three rules reflect the common sense approach to look at words in a sentence in the light of other words in the Act.

i) EIUSDEM GENERIS RULE - of the same kind.

This is applied where general words are added to the end of a list of specific ones. The rule is that the general words have to be interpreted in line with the prior restrictive examples

General words are limited to kind of items in the list

For example, "cats, dogs (specific words) and other such animals"(general words). Under this rule the other animals must be of the same kind as "cats, dogs", arguably domestic animals / pets.

There must be at least 2 specific words in order to create a list

POWELL V KEMPTON PARK RACECOURSEFACTS: The defendant company kept an open air enclosure reserved for book-makers. Under a Regulation it was prohibited to keep a ‘House, office or other place for betting purposes’ – WAS D LIABLE?HELD:

18

ADVANTAGES

No need for draftsman to write an exhaustive list of everything that is included. So the Act can cover circumstances not thought of by the draftsman but which they would have included if they had thought about it.

Allows the Act to adapt to changes in society.

DISADVANTAGES

Allows for judicial law making – contradicts the separation of powers.

There is some uncertainty as it cannot always be predicted what judges will consider is of same category as the specific words; for example:

KIHARA 4.FACTS: Here homeless asylum seekers claimed they were in priority need for housing due to their extreme financial hardship caused by the withdrawal of their benefits. The Housing Act 1985 gave priority to those who were:

‘vulnerable as a result of old age, mental illness or handicap or physical disability or other special reason.’

Does extreme financial hardship amount to ‘other special reason’?

The Court of Appeal felt it did despite the words referring to mental and physical needs.

19

II) EXPRESSIO UNNIUS EST EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS –

Where there is a list of words which is not followed by general ones, then the act only applies to the items in the list

e.g. if an Act specifically mentioned

"Persian cats and Siamese cats" (and no general words) then under this rule the Act would not apply to other breeds of cat.

TEMPEST V KILNER (1846)

FACTS: It had to be decided if the STATUTE OF FRAUDS 1677 applied to STOCKS & SHARES the act stated

"goods, wares and Merchandise"

HELD: that stocks and shares were not in the list [and there were no general words] hence sale of stocks and shares not have to comply with requirements of the Act

ADVANTAGES A finite list is provided which makes outcomes of cases more

predictable. So lawyers can advise clients whether to pursue a case or not.

Respects the sovereignty of Parliament – judges apply the law as stated by the elected Parliament.

DISADVANTAGES Rigidity – no scope for development of the Act to suit a new

situation which draftsman not foreseen but may have intended to cover- which may result in unjust outcomes.

20

III) NOSCITUR A SOCIIS –

A word is known by the company it keeps NOT USUALLY A LISTThe judge must look at words in context of Act as a whole, and interpret accordingly. [Look at words in same section or in other sections] For example if an Act states "hamster cages, straw and food", the meaning of "food" is found by looking at the other words in the sentence — hence meaning hamster food and not dog food.

ADVANTAGES

No need draftsman foresee every particular circumstance. Scope for Act to be adapted to suit unforeseen circumstances.

DISADVANTAGES

Allows for judicial law making Outcome of cases is unpredictable.

INLAND REVENUE COMMISSIONERS V FRERE 1965

ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES OF THE 3 RULES OF LANGUAGE

TYPE ADVANTAGE DISADVANTAGE

21

EJUSDEM GENERIS

1) No need for the draftsman to write an exhaustive list of everything that is included. So the act can cover circumstances no thought of by the draftsman but which they would have included had they thought about it.

2) Allows the act to adapt to changes in society

1) Can’t always predict what judges will consider is of same category as the specific words.

KILHARA 4 Homeless asylum seekers claimed that they were in priority need for housing due to their extreme financial hardship caused by the withdrawal of their benefits. The Housing Act 1985 gives priority to those who are ‘Vulnerable as a result of old age , mental illness , handicap or other special reason’Does extreme financial hardship amount to ‘other special reason’? The CA felt that it did despite the legislation referring to mental & physical needs.

2) The rule allows for judicial law making

NOSCITUR SOCIIS

1) No need for the draftsman to write an exhaustive list of everything that is included. So the act can cover circumstances no thought of by the draftsman but which they would have included had

1) The rule allows for judicial law making

2) Outcome of cases are unpredictable

EXCLUSIO ALTERIUS

1) A finite list is produced making outcomes of cases more predictable

2) Respects Parliamentary sovereignty

1) Rigidity – no scope for development of the act to suit a new situation which draftsman has not foreseen but may have intended to cover could lead to unjust result

APPLYING YOUR KNOWLEDGE OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION

1) Using your knowledge of the rules of statutory interpretation consider whether each of the following has committed an offence by having

22

“…a controlled drug in his possession, whether lawfully or not with the intent to supply it to another…”

i) George has cannabis in his pocket which he intends to smoke with his girlfriend Hannah.

ii) Simon, a doctor, has taken a controlled drug from his patient Tim, an addict, & is planning to deliver them to the police.

iii) Annie is Bill’s mother. One day Bill asks her if she will keep a sealed brown paper package for him while he goes out. The package contains a kilogram of heroin

In each of the following situations use your knowledge of the rules of statutory interpretation, to explain whether or not the following people would be guilty of an offence under Section 57 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 which states:

‘Whosoever, being married, shall marry any other person during the life of the former husband or wife…..shall be guilty of bigamy’

(i) Henry, who is already married, marries a second wife without divorcing the first. He is a member of a religious group that ‘allows’ men to take more than one wife.

23

(ii) Jane married her second husband four years after being told that her first husband had been ‘killed in action’ whilst serving as a soldier in the Army. It now transpires that there was a mistake of identity and her first husband is still alive

(iii) Elizabeth has recently married a very wealthy man. She failed to declare that she was already married to a

man serving a long prison sentence

Referring to the rules of language, which rule is likely to be applied to which situation? Consider all 3 rules & use cases to illustrate:

1) An Act uses the phrase ‘hamsters, dogs, cats & other animals’ & the animal in question is a tiger. Is it included in the act?

2) An act states that it specifically applies to ‘hamsters, dogs & cats’ & the animal in question is a tiger. Is it included in the act?

3) An Act mentions ‘tigers, cages & food’ & the food in question is domestic cat food.Is it included in

Do the same with Fred:

24

Fred is employed as an electrician by Ridgeway electric board to install some additional light fittings in one of its sub - stations. While so employed he trips on the edge of an open duct and falls, sustaining serious injuries. Fred claims that Ridgeway Electricity Board is in breach of its statutory duty under the Electricity (Factories Act) Special Regulations which refers to

“Danger from shock, burn or other injury". Fred claims that his injuries are covered by the phrase "other injury" and that the board is liable under the regulations.

Advice Fred if there has been a breach of the regulations. Refer to the rule of language which is applicable

25