Statutory Interpretation The Technique of Statutory ... - Francis Bennion

More documents

Recommendations

Info

168 Part II — Statutory Interpretation Presumption that 'absurd' result not intended The court seeks to avoid a construction that produces an absurd result, since this is unlikely to have been intended by Parliament. Here the courts give a wide meaning to the concept of 'absurdity', using it to include virtually anything that appears inappropriate, unfitting or unreasonable. In Williams v Evans (1876) 1 Ex D 277 the court had to construe the Highway Act 1835, s 78, which created an offence of furious horse riding but omitted to include this in the penalty provision. Grove J said (p 282) that unless a strained construction were applied the court would be holding that the legislature had made an 'absurd mistake'. Field J agreed, adding (p 284): No doubt it is a maxim to be followed in the interpretation of statutes, that the ordinary grammatical construction is to be adopted; but when this leads to a manifest absurdity, a construction not strictly grammatical is allowed, if this will lead to a reasonable conclusion as to the intention of the legislature. Six types of 'absurdity' The six types of 'absurdity' a court seeks to avoid when construing an enactment are: (a) an unworkable or impracticable result; (b) an inconvenient result; (c) an anomalous or illogical result; (d) a futile or pointless result; (e) an artificial result; and (f) a disproportionate counter-mischief. Unworkable or impracticable result The court seeks to avoid a construction of an enactment that produces an unworkable or impracticable result, since this is unlikely to have been intended by Parliament. For example Lord Reid said in Federal Steam Navigation Co v Department of Trade and Industry [1974] 1 WLR 505, 509 that cases where it has properly been held that one word can be struck out of a statute and another substituted include the case where without such substitution the provision would be unworkable. An obvious justification for strained construction arises where the literal meaning presents a logical impossibility. This arose in Jones v Conway Water Supply [1893] 2 Ch 603. The court had to construe the Public Health Act 1875, s 54, which said that where a local authority 'supply water' they have power to lay water mains (or pipes). Since the authority could not satisfy the condition of 'supplying' water unless they first had mains to carry it in, the power to lay mains was held to operate as soon as the authority had undertaken to supply water. In Wills v Bowley [1983] 1 AC 57, 102 Lord Bridge said it would be 'quite ridiculous' to construe the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, s 28 in such a way as to force on a constable 'a choice between
Guides to Legislative Intention III: Presumptions 169 the risk of making an unlawful arrest and the risk of committing a criminal neglect of duty'. That would be 'to impale him on the horns of an impossible dilemma'. In S J Grange Ltd v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1979] 2 All ER 91, 101 Lord Denning MR said of a VAT provision in the Finance Act 1972, s 31 that a literal construction 'leads to such impracticable results that it is necessary to do a little adjustment so as to make the section workable'. The courts are always anxious to facilitate the smooth working of legal proceedings and avoid the intention of the law being stultified. In R v West Yorkshire Coroner, ex pane Smith [1985] QB 1096 the court rejected the argument that, although a coroner clearly had a statutory power to fine for contempt, it could not be operated since no machinery had been provided for collecting such a fine. In R v Sowden [1964] 1 WLR 1454, 1458 the court gave a strained interpretation to the Poor Prisoners' Defence Act 1930, s 1(1), which entitled a person committed for trial to free legal aid for the preparation and conduct of his defence. It held that this did not give him an unrestricted right to have a solicitor at the trial, since if misused this could cause 'expense to the country, delays and abuse of the whole procedure' (ciAmin v Entry Clearance Officer, Bombay [1983] 2 AC 818, 868, where a construction was rejected which would give a right of appeal 'unworkable in practice'). Sometimes Parliament contemplates that an enactment may in some circumstances prove unworkable, and makes express provision for this (eg the Mines and Quarries Act 1954, s 157). Inconvenient result The court seeks to avoid a construction that causes unjustifiable inconvenience to persons who are subject to the enactment, since this is unlikely to have been intended by Parliament. Modern courts seek to cut down technicalities attendant upon a statutory procedure where these cannot be shown to be necessary to the fulfilment of the purposes of the legislation (see, eg, Lawrence Chemical Co Ltd v Rubenstein [1982] 1 WLR 284). Modern regulatory enactments bear heavily on business enterprise, and the courts are alert to avoid any inconvenience which is not essential to the operation of the Act, and which may in addition have adverse economic consequences (eg Cutler v Wandsworth Stadium Ltd [1949] AC 398, 417). The financial demands of the welfare state make modern legislation particularly coercive on the taxpayer, and again the courts are ready to ensure that, even though in the public interest proper taxes must be paid, the taxpayer is not unreasonably harassed by the tax authorities (eg Hallamshire Industrial Finance Trust Ltd v IRC [1979] 1 WLR 620; IRC v Helen Slater Charitable Trust Ltd [1982] Ch 49). It sometimes happens that each of the constructions contended for involves some measure of inconvenience, and the court then has to balance the effect of each construction and determine which
Page 1 and 2:
© F A R Bennion Website: www.franc
Page 3 and 4:
The Technique of Statutory Interpre
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Applying the guides to legislative
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Guides to Legislative Intention I:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36: Guides to Legislative Intention I:
Page 55 and 56: Guides to Legislative Intention II:
Page 77 and 78: Guides to Legislative Intention HI:
Page 79 and 80: Guides to Legislative Intention III
Page 85: Guides to Legislative Intention III
Page 99 and 100: Guides to Legislative Intention HI:
Page 105 and 106: *** Page 187 - Chapter Twelve Guide
Page 107 and 108: Guides to Legislative Intention IV:
Page 123: Guides to Legislative Intention IV:
show all

Statutory Interpretation The Technique of Statutory ... - Francis Bennion

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?