How Laws Are Interpreted – Statutory Interpretation and Precedent

Laws, no matter how well written, often require interpretation. Courts play a vital role in giving meaning to legal texts — especially legislation and previous court decisions. This process is fundamental to ensuring that the law is applied consistently, fairly, and in line with society’s values.

In this lesson, we explore the two main tools of legal interpretation:

1. Statutory interpretation – interpreting Acts of Parliament (legislation)

2. Precedent – following previous court decisions (case law)

1. Why Interpretation Matters

Even the most carefully worded laws can contain:

• Ambiguities: More than one possible meaning

• General terms: Broad language that needs specific application

• Outdated or unforeseen scenarios: E.g. new technologies

• Conflicts between laws

Judges must interpret laws to resolve real disputes — making the meaning of law clear in specific contexts.

Part A: Statutory Interpretation

What Is Statutory Interpretation?

Statutory interpretation is the process by which courts determine the meaning of legislation. Judges aim to apply the law as intended by Parliament, but interpretation is sometimes necessary when the words are unclear or disputed.

Common Approaches to Interpretation

1. The Literal Rule

• Judges apply the plain, ordinary meaning of the words, even if the outcome seems absurd.

• Example: If a law says “no vehicles in the park”, a literal approach might ban bicycles and toy cars, even if not intended.

2. The Golden Rule

• A modification of the literal rule. Judges start with the plain meaning but can adapt it to avoid an absurd or unjust result.

• Example: If literal interpretation leads to a contradiction or nonsense, the court can adjust it.

3. The Mischief Rule

• Courts ask: What was the law intended to remedy? What “mischief” or problem was Parliament trying to fix?

• Judges interpret the statute to suppress the mischief and advance the remedy.

• This approach considers the law’s purpose, not just the words.

4. The Purposive Approach

• Similar to the mischief rule but broader. Used widely in modern courts.

• Judges focus on the overall purpose or intent of the legislation, often referring to:

  • Parliamentary debates (Hansard)

  • Explanatory memoranda

  • Legislative history

This is particularly useful for interpreting human rights laws and international obligations.

Aids to Interpretation

• Internal aids: Definitions within the Act, headings, preambles, punctuation

• External aids: Dictionaries, law reform reports, international treaties, prior versions of the law

Part B: Precedent (Case Law)

What Is Precedent?

In common law systems (e.g. Australia, USA, Canada, UK), courts follow the principle of stare decisis — meaning “to stand by what has been decided.” This means:

Decisions made by higher courts bind lower courts in similar cases.

 

This ensures consistency, predictability, and fairness in the law.

Types of Precedent

1. Binding Precedent:

   • Must be followed by lower courts if the earlier case is similar.

   • Comes from higher courts in the same legal hierarchy.

2. Persuasive Precedent:

   • Not binding, but may influence decisions.

   • Includes:

     • Decisions from lower or parallel courts

     • Rulings from courts in other jurisdictions (e.g. another country)

     • Obiter dicta (comments not central to the earlier decision)

   •  

Ratio Decidendi vs Obiter Dicta

• Ratio decidendi (“reason for the decision”): The legal principle on which the case was decided — this is binding.

• Obiter dicta (“things said by the way”): Extra remarks or examples — persuasive but not binding.

Overruling and Distinguishing Precedents

• Overruling: A higher court may overturn a precedent it finds incorrect.

• Distinguishing: A court may decide that the facts of the case are different enough to not follow the earlier precedent.

The Role of Precedent in Legal Development

• Courts not only apply law — they develop it.

• Especially when legislation is unclear or silent, courts fill gaps through reasoned judgments.

• Example: Principles of negligence (e.g. the “duty of care”) were largely developed through case law.

Limitations of Precedent

• Can lead to rigidity or outdated rules

• Relies on detailed case reporting and accessible legal records

• Courts may differ in how they interpret or apply the same case