Finding Parliament's Intention

• If a statute is unclear in its wording, or there is a new situation facing the courts, then it's up to the court, and ultimately the judge, to decide which approach is best used to reach the best outcome
• To help them decide which approach is best, they use aids to interpretation

Aids to Interpretation:

Internal/Intrinsic Aids:

• Long title of the Act
• Short title of the Act
• Preamble (modern statutes don't seem to have it. It's at the beginning of the statute and is almost like a short summary) - In the Theft Act 1968, it says in the preamble that it is an 'Act to modernise the law of theft)
• Headings
• Schedules
• Explanatory notes
• Rules of language: Ejusdem generis - words of the same kind, Expressio unius est exclusio alterius - express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another, Noscitur a sociis - a word draws its meaning from those around it

Presumptions:

1. Statutes do not change the common law
2. Legislation does not operate retrospectively
3. Laws which create crimes should be interpreted in favour of the defendant

External/Extrinsic Aids:

• Previous Acts
• The historical setting
• Earlier case law
• Dictionaries and textbooks of the time
• Hansard
• Law commission reports
• International conventions, regulations or directives
• Treaties
• The Human Rights Act 1998 - The Act incorporates into UK law the European Convention on Human Rights. Section 3 requires that: "So far as it is possible to do so, legislation must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights"

• Hansard - David v Johnson (1978)
• Pepper v Hart (1993) - the dissenting judgment of Lord Mackay
• Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (1996)
• R v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport, and the Regions, ex parte Spath Hilme Ltd (2001)
• Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (2003)

European Legislation:

Under Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, the Court of Justice of the European Union is the supreme court for the interpretation of EU law

Lord Denning in Bulmer v Bollinger (1974) said that when interpreting EU law the courts should take the same approach as the European Court

"No longer must they examine the words in meticulous detail... they must look to the purpose or intent. To quote the words of the European Court in DaCosta they must divine the spirit of the Treaty and gain inspiration from in. If they find a gap they must fill it... So must we do the same"

Effect of EU Membership on Statutory Interpretation: 
Growth of a more purposive approach and effect of S2(4) European Communities Act 1972 - all parliamentary legislation must be construed and applied in accordance with Union law:
R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame (1990)

Statutory Interpretation and Case Law:

• Once the courts have interpreted a statute, that interpretation becomes part of case law in the same way as any other judicial decision, and is therefore subject to the rules of precedent