Chapter Three - Lists

Question

Chapter 3: (C) LISTS

Answer

(13) List two cases to illustrate the ‘golden rule’ of interpretation. (2)

For example:

· Adler v George (1964)
· Re Sigsworth (1935)

(14) List the three limits placed on the use of Hansard in statutory interpretation (stated by Lord Browne-Wilkinson) in Pepper v Hart. (3)

· the legislation under scrutiny has to be ambiguous, obscure or generally unclear;
· that the material to be relied on in Hansard consists of statements by a Minister or other promoter of the Act in its Bill-stage;
· that the statements made by the promoter are clear and unambiguous and therefore can be relied upon.

(15) List five extrinsic aids that may be used by judges in interpreting statutes. (5)

For example:

· Parliamentary debates (Hansard)
· Official publications developed during law reform (such as White Papers and the reports of law reform bodies)
· International agreements
· Dictionaries
· Other statutory authority
(See also AS Level Law at pp 52-54.)

(16) List two cases that illustrate the mischief rule of interpretation. (2) For example:

· Smith v Hughes (1960)
· Royal College of Nursing of the UK v Department of Health and Social Security (1981)

(17) List three practical difficulties associated with the use of Hansard for interpretation. (3)

For example:

· Research-time for lawyers and judges to consult Hansard
· The cost to litigants as a result of this research
· The parliamentary statement to be relied on might not prove to be as useful as it was anticipated.