Aids to Statutory Interpretation

Internal/External
• Intrinsic/Extrinsic

• What do these words mean?

 Internal/Intrinsic Aids
• These are found in the Act itself
• The long and/or short title of the Act – Abortion Act 1967 – long title is
“An Act to amend and clarify the law relating to termination of
pregnancy by registered medical practitioners” – referred to by Judges in
Royal College of Nursing of the United Kingdom v DHSS
• The preamble (if there is one) – older acts have a detailed preamble
outlining what the statute covered and its purpose. Newer acts may
contain an objectives or purposes section
• Marginal Notes and headings – some sections of the Act may have
headings and marginal notes, usually added by the person drafting the
Act
– R v Tivnan – used marginal notes for clarification
• Interpretation Sections – most acts now contain these. E.g. – S.10 Theft
Act 1968 – refers to the use of a “weapon of offence” in aggravated
burglary, then defines it as “any article made or adapted for use for
causing injury”.
• Schedules – many acts contain these at the end of an Act and include
more detailed clarification. E.g. S.2(1) Hunting Act 2004 – “Hunting is
exempt if it is within a class specified in Schedule 1”. Schedule 1 then
specifies the exempt classes of hunting
 Advantages of Internal/Intrinsic Aids
• It is more respectful of Parliament to look elsewhere in
the Act rather than outside the Act – respects the
authority of Parliament in law-making
• It is quick and easy to look at things like marginal
notes, which were helpful in Tivnan or the long title
used in Cornwall CC v Baker
• Some internal aids like interpretation sections and
Schedules are designed to provide definitions and
explanations, so it is common sense to look at them –
e.g. S.10 Theft Act explained the meaning of “weapon
of offence”
 Disadvantages of Internal/Intrinsic
Aids
• Most problems with wording are not likely to be
solved by looking elsewhere in the Act, especially
if the words are ambiguous as in Allen or very
plain but wrong as in Whitely and Chappell
• Internal aids alone are unlikely to be sufficient
and if judges were not allowed to refer to
anything outside the Act it would be more
difficult for them to avoid unfair or absurd
decisions
•
External/Extrinsic
These are found outside the Act
Aids
• Dictionaries of various kinds – e.g. Vaughan v Vaughan - a man had been pestering his
ex-wife and Court used a dictionary to define “molest” and concluded the definition
was wide enough to cover his behaviour. E.g. – Cheeseman – dictionary was used to
decide the meaning of “passengers”
• Previous Acts of Parliament and earlier Case Law – Royal Derby Porcelain Co. Ltd. V
Raymond Russell – when consider the Rent and Mortgage Act 1933 – court interpreted
the words used in the Act by referring to similar words used in an earlier Act and to the
way these were interpreted in cases
• Reference to Hansard (the official report of the proceedings in Parliament) – until
1990, courts were not allowed to refer to Hansard in order to find out Parliament’s
intention. This was overturned in Pepper v Hart, however use is restricted to cases
where the words of an Act are ambiguous or obscure or lead to an absurdity. Even
then, only where there is a clear statement by the minister introducing the legislation
that would resolve the doubt
• Wider use of Hansard – only permitted if the legislation in question has introduced an
international convention or European directive into English law
• Law reform reports – from bodies such as the Law Commission
• International Treaties – Fothergill v Monarch Airlines Ltd – confirmed that background
working papers could be used to ascertain the meaning of an ambiguous or doubtful
section of an Act based on an international treaty
• Explanatory Notes – since 1999, all government Bills are accompanied by explanatory
notes which provide guidance on complex parts of the Bill
• Interpretation Act 1978 - provides definition of certain words often used in Acts – e.g.
masculine to include feminine.
 Advantages of External/Extrinsic Aids
• Using a dictionary is quick and easy, as in
Cheeseman and Vaughan
• Using Hansard might clarify what Parliament
meant. Davis v Johnson - Lord Denning said that
not to use it would be “like groping around in the
dark without putting the light on”
• Europe allows background papers to be used so it
is sensible for English courts to use them when
Acts are based on international rules, as in
Fothergill v Monarch Airlines
 Disadvantages of External/Extrinsic
Aids
• Using Hansard may not reveal what Parliament as a whole
intended. Pepper v Hart restricts the courts to considering
what ministers said, but Parliament may have decided not
to follow the minister’s view.
• What the minister said may not be clear – Deegan – court
ruled that Hansard couldn’t be used because what the
minister said was not clear. Lord Bingham said if the
statement is unclear, the courts would be tempted to
compare one statement with another and run the risk of
questioning proceedings in Parliament, which
constitutionally they are not allowed to do
• Danger of treating materials that are not part of the Act as
having the same status as the Act and therefore
undermining the authority of Parliament. This is the main
objection to using external aids, particularly those other
than dictionaries which are less objectionable