Purposive approach
The purposive approach is an approach to statutory and constitutional interpretation under which common law courts interpret an enactment within the context of the law's purpose.
Purposive interpretation is a derivation of mischief rule set in Heydon's Case, and intended to replace the mischief rule, the plain meaning rule and the golden rule. Purposive interpretation is used when the courts use extraneous materials from the pre-enactment phase of legislation, including early drafts, hansards, committee reports, and white papers.
Israeli jurist Aharon Barak views purposive interpretation as a legal construction that combines subjective and objective elements. Barak states that the subjective elements include the intention of the author of the text, whereas the objective elements include the intent of the reasonable author and the legal system's fundamental values.
Critics of purposivism argue it fails to separate the powers between the legislator and the judiciary, as it allows more freedom in interpretation by way of extraneous materials in interpreting the law.
Historical origins
Plain meaning rule
The plain meaning rule gained popularity during the 18th and 19th centuries as the courts took an increasingly strict view of the words within statutes. Under the plain meaning rule, courts give the words of a statute their natural or ordinary meaning. One of the leading statements of the plain meaning rule was made by Chief Justice Nicholas Conyngham Tindal in the Sussex Peerage case, concerning whether Augustus d'Este succeeded to the titles of his father Prince Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex, and in particular, whether the marriage of his father and mother was valid under the Royal Marriages Act 1772:A strict application of the plain meaning rule can sometimes result in "absurd" outcomes. Examples of the plain meaning rule producing absurd outcomes can be seen in the following cases:
- In Whitely v Chappel, a statute made it an offence "to impersonate any person entitled to vote". The defendant used the vote of a dead man. The statute relating to voting rights required a person to be living to be entitled to vote. The plain meaning rule was applied, and the defendant was thus acquitted.
- In R v Harris, the defendant had bitten off his victim's nose. Nevertheless, because the statute made it an offence "to stab cut or wound", the court held that under the plain meaning rule, the act of biting did not come within the meaning of stab cut or wound as these words implied an instrument had to be used. The court overturned the defendant's conviction.
- In Fisher v Bell, the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1958 made it an offence to "offer for sale" an offensive weapon. The defendant had a flick knife displayed in his shop window with a price tag on it. The statute made it a criminal offence to "offer" such flick knives for sale. The court overturned his conviction because the display of goods in a shop is not an "offer" in the technical sense but an invitation to treat. The court applied the plain meaning rule of statutory interpretation.
Golden rule
The degree of absurdity or ambiguity necessary to exercise the golden rule is determined on a case-by-case basis by the individual judge in question. There are two general situations in which the golden rule may be employed: narrowly, to take the 'better' reading of two alternatives, or more widely, to broaden a rule that, although unambiguous, leads to an absurd outcome.
The case Maddox v Storer 1 QB 451 is typical of the more narrow use. In Maddox, the defendant travelled at over the 30 mph speed limit in a minibus with eleven seats, most of which were unoccupied. Per the Road Traffic Act 1960, travelling at over 30 mph in a vehicle "adapted to carry more than seven passengers" was an offence. The court held that adapted to could be taken to mean suitable for, rather than necessarily implying an alteration to the original design.
The court applied the golden rule in a broader sense in Adler v George. Under the Official Secrets Act 1920, it was an offence to obstruct an armed forces member "in the vicinity" of a prohibited place. The defendant was actually in the prohibited place, rather than "in the vicinity" of it, at the time of obstruction. The courts had to determine whether "in vicinity of" included on/in the premises. The court applied the golden rule. The court said that "in the vicinity" did include on or in as well. It would be absurd for a person to be liable if they were near a prohibited place and not if they were actually in it. Therefore, the court upheld the defendant's conviction.
In Re Sigsworth, a son had murdered his mother. Under slayer or forfeiture rules of long standing in England, he would have been excluded as a beneficiary under her will. She had, however, died intestate, and the Administration of Estates Act 1925 provided that her son would inherit. Although the situation was unambiguous, the absurdity inherent in such a situation meant that forfeiture had to be treated as applicable to intestacy rules taking the place of a will as well as wills themselves.
Mischief rule
In Construction of Statutes, Elmer Driedger defines the mischief rule as follows:Heydon's Case laid out the following statement of the principles underlying what would come to be called the "mischief rule":
The mischief rule saw further development in Corkery v Carpenter. In a decision of the Court of King's Bench, the Court had to decide whether a bicycle could be classified as a carriage. According to s. 12 of the Licensing Act 1872, a person found drunk in charge of a carriage on the highway can be arrested without a warrant. A man was arrested drunk in charge of a bicycle. According to the plain meaning rule, a bicycle is not a carriage. Under the mischief rule, the bicycle could constitute a carriage. The mischief the act was attempting to remedy was people being on the road on transport while drunk. Therefore, a bicycle could be classified as a carriage.
In Smith v Hughes, the defendant was charged under the Street Offences Act 1959, which made it an offence to solicit prostitution in a public place. The defendant was soliciting from within private premises, so they could be seen by the public without entering into the streets. The court applied the mischief rule, holding that the defendant's activities were within the mischief of the Act, and soliciting from within a house is soliciting and molesting of the public. Therefore, it is the same as if the defendant was outside on the street.
In Royal College of Nursing of the UK v DHSS, the Royal College of Nursing brought an action challenging the legality of the involvement of nurses in carrying out abortions. The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 made it an offence for any person to carry out an abortion. The Abortion Act 1967 provides an absolute defence for a medical practitioner provided certain well-known conditions are satisfied. Discoveries in medicine meant that surgery had more often been replaced with the administration of hormones, commonly by nurses. The courts were responsible for determining whether they were acting unlawfully, not being "medical practitioners" as defined under the Act. The House of Lords ruled that the Act was intended to provide for safe abortions and that nurses could carry out such abortions provided that a doctor had prescribed the treatment and accepted responsibility for its conduct throughout the procedure.
Aids to interpretation
Internal aids to statute interpretation
Generally, prima facie must be given as a general rule of statutory interpretation. If the words are clear and free from ambiguity, there is no need to refer to other means of interpretation. However, if the words in the statute are vague and ambiguous, then internal aid may be consulted for interpretation. Judges should read a statute as a whole; what is not clear in one section may be explained in another section.Internal aids include the following:
External aids to statute interpretation
Aids external to a statute can also be used as a recourse, including:Australia
Section 15AA of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 of Australia states that the interpretation that best achieves the purpose or object of a Commonwealth act is preferred to all other interpretations. Equivalent provisions are contained in the interpretation acts enacted in most Australian States and Territories. When determining the purpose of a statutory provision, courts ought to keep in mind the contexts for the provision at the outset rather than only when ambiguity or inconsistency exists. The statutory context 1) explanatory memoranda that are relevant to the statute and 2) reports of advisory bodies, such as law commissions, that created the need for the particular statutory provisions. 187 CLR 384 at 408; also see Acts Interpretation Act 1901Whereas other common law countries embraced purposivism much earlier, the High Court of Australia has only been receptive to purposivism since the 1970s. Historically, Australian legalism persevered for many years following the landmark decision in the Engineers Case. Sometimes considered aggressively textualist, Australian legalism emphasizes the importance of and attends only to the words in the statute when determining meaning.
The Court remains entrenched in the tradition of textualism and original meaning more than the typical European, Canadian, or even American jurist; however, Justice McHugh refers to Australian legalism as "faint-hearted", as the Court's focus on textualism does not preclude its ability to evaluate extrinsic evidence. The move away from staunch textualism is primarily attributed to the "revolution" of the Mason Court.